Los murciélagos en todo el mundo son vectores primarios para la transmisión de virus de animales a humanos. Generalmente esos virus son inofensivos para los murciélagos, pero pueden ser mortales para los humanos.

Por ejemplo, en China, los murciélagos de herradura se citan como una causa probable del brote de covid-19. Y los investigadores creen que la presión ejercida sobre los murciélagos por el cambio climático y la invasión del desarrollo humano han aumentado la frecuencia con la que los virus saltan de estos animales a las personas, causando lo que se conoce como enfermedades zoonóticas.

“Estos eventos indirectos son el resultado de una cascada de factores estresantes: el hábitat de los murciélagos cambia, el clima se vuelve más extremo, los murciélagos se trasladan a áreas humanas para encontrar comida”, dijo Raina Plowright, ecologista de enfermedades y coautora de un artículo reciente en la revista Nature y otro en Ecology Letters sobre el papel de los cambios ecológicos en las enfermedades.

Es por eso que Agnieszka Rynda-Apple, inmunóloga de la Universidad Estatal de Montana (MSU), planea traer murciélagos frugívoros (o de la fruta) de Jamaica a Bozeman este invierno para iniciar una colonia de reproducción y acelerar el trabajo de su laboratorio como parte de un equipo de 70 investigadores en siete países.

El grupo, llamado BatOneHealth, fundado por Plowright, espera encontrar formas de predecir dónde el póximo virus mortal podría dar el salto de los murciélagos a las personas. “Estamos colaborando para responder a la pregunta de por qué los murciélagos son un vector tan fantástico”, dijo Rynda-Apple.

“Estamos tratando de entender qué es lo que hace que sus sistemas inmunológicos retengan el virus y cuál es la situación en la que lo eliminan”, agregó.

Para estudiar el papel del estrés nutricional, explicó que los investigadores crean diferentes dietas para estos mamíferos, “los infectan con el virus de la influenza y luego estudian cuánto virus están eliminando, la duración de la eliminación viral y su respuesta antiviral”.

Si bien Rynda Apple y sus colegas ya han estado haciendo este tipo de experimentos, la cría de murciélagos les permitirá ampliar la investigación. Es un esfuerzo arduo comprender a fondo cómo el cambio ambiental contribuye al estrés nutricional, y predecir mejor el efecto indirecto.

“Si realmente podemos entender todas las piezas del rompecabezas, eso nos dará herramientas para volver atrás y pensar en medidas contra-ecológicas que podemos poner en práctica para romper el ciclo de los efectos indirectos”, dijo Andrew Hoegh, profesor asistente de estadísticas en MSU que está creando modelos para posibles escenarios indirectos.

El pequeño equipo de investigadores de la MSU trabaja con un investigador del Rocky Mountain Laboratories de los Institutos Nacionales de Salud en Hamilton, Montana.

Los artículos recientes publicados en Nature y Ecology Letters se centran en el virus Hendra en Australia, que es donde nació Plowright.

Hendra es un virus respiratorio que causa síntomas similares a los de la gripe y se propaga de los murciélagos a los caballos, y luego puede transmitirse a las personas que tratan a los caballos. Es mortal, con una tasa de mortalidad del 75% en caballos. De las siete personas que hasta el momento se sabe que contrajeron esta infección, cuatro murieron.

La pregunta que impulsó el trabajo de Plowright es por qué Hendra comenzó a aparecer en caballos y personas en la década de 1990, a pesar de que los murciélagos probablemente han albergado al virus por millones de años.

La investigación demuestra que la razón es el cambio ambiental. Plowright comenzó su investigación sobre murciélagos en 2006. En muestras tomadas de murciélagos australianos llamados zorros voladores, ella y sus colegas rara vez detectaron el virus.

Después de que el ciclón tropical Larry frente a la costa del Territorio del Norte australiano acabara con la fuente de alimento de los murciélagos en 2005-06, cientos de miles de animales simplemente desaparecieron. Sin embargo, encontraron una pequeña población de murciélagos débiles y hambrientos cargados con el virus Hendra.

Eso llevó a Plowright a centrarse en el estrés nutricional como un factor clave en el efecto indirecto. El equipo analizó 25 años de datos sobre la pérdida de hábitat, el derrame y el clima, y descubrieron un vínculo entre la pérdida de fuentes de alimento causada por el cambio ambiental y las altas cargas virales en murciélagos estresados por la comida.

En el año posterior a un patrón climático de El Niño, con sus altas temperaturas, que ocurren cada pocos años, muchos árboles de eucalipto no producen las flores con el néctar que necesitan los murciélagos. Y la invasión humana de otros hábitats, desde las granjas hasta el desarrollo urbano, ha eliminado las fuentes alternativas de alimentos. Entonces, los murciélagos tienden a mudarse a áreas urbanas con higueras, mangos y otros árboles deficientes y, estresados, propagan los virus.

Cuando los murciélagos excretan orina y heces, los caballos las inhalan mientras huelen el suelo. Los investigadores esperan que su trabajo con murciélagos infectados con Hendra ilustre un principio universal: cómo la destrucción y la alteración de la naturaleza pueden aumentar la probabilidad de que los patógenos mortales pasen de los animales salvajes a los humanos.

Las tres fuentes más probables de contagio son los murciélagos, los mamíferos y los artrópodos, especialmente las garrapatas. Alrededor del 60% de las enfermedades infecciosas emergentes que infectan a los humanos provienen de animales, y alrededor de dos tercios de ellas provienen de animales salvajes.

La idea de que la deforestación y la invasión humana de las tierras salvajes alimentan las pandemias no es nueva. Por ejemplo, expertos creen que el VIH, que causa el SIDA, infectó a los humanos por primera vez cuando la gente comía chimpancés en África central. Un brote en Malasia a fines de 1998 y principios de 1999 del virus Nipah transmitido por murciélagos se propagó de murciélagos a cerdos. Los cerdos lo amplificaron y se propagó a los humanos, con un brote que infectó a 276 personas, y mató a 106.

Ahora está emergiendo la conexión con el estrés provocado por los cambios ambientales.

Una pieza crítica de este complejo rompecabezas es el sistema inmunológico de los murciélagos. Los murciélagos frugívoros de Jamaica que vivirán en la MSU ayudarán a los investigadores a obtener más información sobre los efectos del estrés nutricional en su carga viral.

Vincent Munster, jefe de la unidad de ecología de virus de Rocky Mountain Laboratories y miembro de BatOneHealth, también está analizando diferentes especies de murciélagos para comprender mejor la ecología del contagio. “Hay 1,400 especies diferentes de murciélagos y hay diferencias muy significativas entre los que albergan coronavirus y los murciélagos que albergan el virus del Ébola”, dijo Munster. “Y murciélagos que viven cientos de miles juntos versus murciélagos que son relativamente solitarios”.

Mientras tanto, Gary Tabor, esposo de Plowright, es presidente del Center for Large Landscape Conservation, una organización sin fines de lucro que aplica la ecología de la investigación de enfermedades para proteger el hábitat de la vida silvestre, en parte, para garantizar que la vida silvestre esté adecuadamente alimentada y protegerse contra la propagación de virus.

“La fragmentación del hábitat es un problema de salud planetaria que no se está abordando lo suficiente, dado que el mundo continúa experimentando niveles sin precedentes de deforestación”, dijo Tabor.

A medida que mejore la capacidad de predecir brotes, otras estrategias se vuelven posibles. Los modelos que pueden predecir dónde podría extenderse el virus Hendra podrían conducir a la vacunación de los caballos en esas áreas. Otra posible solución es el conjunto de “contramedidas ecológicas” a las que se refirió Hoegh, como la plantación a gran escala de eucaliptos en flor para que los murciélagos zorros voladores no se vean obligados a buscar néctar en áreas desarrolladas.

“En este momento, el mundo está enfocado en cómo podemos detener la próxima pandemia”, dijo Plowright. “Desafortunadamente, preservar o restaurar la naturaleza rara vez es parte de la discusión”.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Bats worldwide are primary vectors for virus transmission from animals to humans. Those viruses often are harmless to bats but can be deadly to humans. Horseshoe bats in China, for example, are cited as a likely cause of the covid-19 outbreak. And researchers believe pressure put on bats by climate change and encroachment from human development have increased the frequency of viruses jumping from bats to people, causing what are known as zoonotic diseases.

“Spillover events are the result of a cascade of stressors — bat habitat is cleared, climate becomes more extreme, bats move into human areas to find food,” said Raina Plowright, a disease ecologist and co-author of a recent paper in the journal Nature and another in Ecology Letters on the role of ecological changes in disease.

That’s why Montana State University immunologist Agnieszka Rynda-Apple plans to bring the Jamaican fruit bats to Bozeman this winter to start a breeding colony and accelerate her lab’s work as part of a team of 70 researchers in seven countries. The group, called BatOneHealth — founded by Plowright — hopes to find ways to predict where the next deadly virus might make the leap from bats to people.

“We’re collaborating on the question of why bats are such a fantastic vector,” said Rynda-Apple. “We’re trying to understand what is it about their immune systems that makes them retain the virus, and what is the situation in which they shed the virus.”

To study the role of nutritional stress, researchers create different diets for them, she said, “and infect them with the influenza virus and then study how much virus they are shedding, the length of the viral shedding, and their antiviral response.”

While she and her colleagues have already been doing these kinds of experiments, breeding bats will allow them to expand the research.

It’s a painstaking effort to thoroughly understand how environmental change contributes to nutritional stress and to better predict spillover. “If we can really understand all the pieces of the puzzle, that gives us tools to go back in and think about eco-counter measures that we can put in place that will break the cycle of spillovers,” said Andrew Hoegh, an assistant professor of statistics at MSU who is creating models for possible spillover scenarios.

The small team of researchers at MSU works with a researcher at the National Institutes of Health’s Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Hamilton, Montana.

The recent papers published in Nature and Ecology Letters focus on the Hendra virus in Australia, which is where Plowright was born. Hendra is a respiratory virus that causes flu-like symptoms and spreads from bats to horses, and then can be passed on to people who treat the horses. It is deadly, with a mortality rate of 75% in horses. Of the seven people known to have been infected, four died.

The question that propelled Plowright’s work is why Hendra began to show up in horses and people in the 1990s, even though bats have likely hosted the virus for eons. The research demonstrates that the reason is environmental change.

Plowright began her bat research in 2006. In samples taken from Australian bats called flying foxes, she and her colleagues rarely detected the virus. After Tropical Cyclone Larry off the coast of the Northern Territory wiped out the bats’ food source in 2005-06, hundreds of thousands of the animals simply disappeared. However, they found one small population of weak and starving bats loaded with the Hendra virus. That led Plowright to focus on nutritional stress as a key player in spillover.

She and her collaborators scoured 25 years of data on habitat loss, spillover, and climate and discovered a link between the loss of food sources caused by environmental change and high viral loads in food-stressed bats.

In the year after an El Niño climate pattern, with its high temperatures — occurring every few years — many eucalyptus trees don’t produce the flowers with nectar the bats need. And human encroachment on other habitats, from farms to urban development, has eliminated alternative food sources. And so the bats tend to move into urban areas with substandard fig, mango, and other trees, and, stressed, shed virus. When the bats excrete urine and feces, horses inhale it while sniffing the ground.

The researchers hope their work with Hendra-infected bats will illustrate a universal principle: how the destruction and alteration of nature can increase the likelihood that deadly pathogens will spill over from wild animals to humans.

The three most likely sources of spillover are bats, mammals, and arthropods, especially ticks. Some 60% of emerging infectious diseases that infect humans come from animals, and about two-thirds of those come from wild animals.

The idea that deforestation and human encroachment into wild land fuels pandemics is not new. For example, experts believe that HIV, which causes AIDS, first infected humans when people ate chimpanzees in central Africa. A Malaysian outbreak in late 1998 and early 1999 of the bat-borne Nipah virus spread from bats to pigs. The pigs amplified it, and it spread to humans, infecting 276 people and killing 106 in that outbreak. Now emerging is the connection to stress brought on by environmental changes.

One critical piece of this complex puzzle is bat immune systems. The Jamaican fruit bats kept at MSU will help researchers learn more about the effects of nutritional stress on their viral load.

Vincent Munster, chief of the virus ecology unit of Rocky Mountain Laboratories and a member of BatOneHealth, is also looking at different species of bats to better understand the ecology of spillover. “There are 1,400 different bat species and there are very significant differences between bats who harbor coronaviruses and bats who harbor Ebola virus,” said Munster. “And bats who live with hundreds of thousands together versus bats who are relatively solitary.”

Meanwhile, Plowright’s husband, Gary Tabor, is president of the Center for Large Landscape Conservation, a nonprofit that applies ecology of disease research to protect wildlife habitat — in part, to assure that wildlife is adequately nourished and to guard against virus spillover.

“Habitat fragmentation is a planetary health issue that is not being sufficiently addressed, given the world continues to experience unprecedented levels of land clearing,” said Tabor.

As the ability to predict outbreaks improves, other strategies become possible. Models that can predict where the Hendra virus could spill over could lead to vaccination for horses in those areas.

Another possible solution is the set of “eco-counter measures” Hoegh referred to — such as large-scale planting of flowering eucalyptus trees so flying foxes won’t be forced to seek nectar in developed areas.

“Right now, the world is focused on how we can stop the next pandemic,” said Plowright. “Unfortunately, preserving or restoring nature is rarely part of the discussion.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KHN

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KHN’s weekly health policy news podcast, “What the Health?” A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book “Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z,” now in its third edition.

The abortion debate has changed dramatically in the seven months since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and its nationwide right to abortion. Nearly half the states have banned or restricted the procedure, even though the public, at the ballot box, continues to show support for abortion rights.

In this special, two-part podcast, taped the week of the 50th anniversary of the decision in Roe v. Wade, an expert panel delves into the fight, the sometimes-unintended side effects, and what each side plans for 2023.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, and Sarah Varney of KHN.

Panelists

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories

Sarah Varney
KHN

@sarahvarney4

Read Sarah's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Exemptions to state abortion bans came into question shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe, with national debate surrounding the case of a 10-year-old in Ohio who was forced to travel out of state to have an abortion — although, as a rape victim, she should have been able to obtain an abortion in her home state.
• The restrictions in many states have caused problems for women experiencing miscarriages, as medical providers fear repercussions of providing care — whether affecting their medical licenses or malpractice insurance coverage, or even drawing criminal charges. So far, there have been no reports of doctors being charged.
• A Christian father in Texas won a lawsuit against the federal government that bars the state’s Title X family-planning clinics from dispensing birth control to minors without parental consent. That change poses a particular problem for rural areas, where there may not be another place to obtain contraception, and other states could follow suit. The Title X program has long required clinics to serve minors without informing their parents.
• Top abortion opponents are leaning on misinformation to advance their causes, including to inaccurately claim that birth control is dangerous.
• Medication abortion is the next target for abortion opponents. In recent months, the FDA has substantially loosened restrictions on the “abortion pill,” though only in the states where abortion remains available. Some opponents are getting creative by citing environmental laws to argue, without evidence, that the abortion pill could contaminate the water supply.
• Restrictions are also creating problems for the maternal care workforce, with implications possibly rippling for decades to come. Some of the states with the worst maternal health outcomes also have abortion bans, leading providers to rethink how, and where, they train and practice.
• Looking ahead, a tug of war is occurring on state and local levels among abortion opponents about what to do next. Some lawmakers who voted for state bans are expressing interest in at least a partial rollback, while other opponents are pushing back to demand no changes to the bans. With Congress divided, decisions about federal government spending could draw the most attention for those looking for national policy changes.

And for extra credit, the panelists recommend their most memorable reproductive health stories from the last year:

Julie Rovner: NPR’s “Because of Texas’ Abortion Law, Her Wanted Pregnancy Became a Medical Nightmare,” by Carrie Feibel

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times Magazine’s “She Wasn’t Ready for Children. A Judge Wouldn’t Let Her Have an Abortion,” by Lizzie Presser

Sandhya Raman: ProPublica’s “’We Need to Defend This Law’: Inside an Anti-Abortion Meeting with Tennessee’s GOP Lawmakers,” by Kavitha Surana

Sarah Varney: Science Friday’s and KHN’s “Why Contraceptive Failure Rates Matter in a Post-Roe America,” by Sarah Varney

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• NPR’s “Doctors Who Want to Defy Abortion Laws Say It’s Too Risky,” by Selena Simmons-Duffin
• The Columbus Dispatch’s “Suspect Indicted in Rape of 10-Year-Old Columbus Girl Who Got Indiana Abortion,” by Bethany Bruner
• Reveal’s “The Long Campaign to Turn Birth Control Into the New Abortion”
• Reuters’ “Alabama Case Over Mistaken Pregnancy Highlights Risks in a Post-Roe World,” by Hassan Kanu
• Politico’s “The Next Abortion Fight Could Be Over Wastewater Regulation,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein
• The Washington Post’s “Abortion Bans Complicate Access to Drugs for Cancer, Arthritis, Even Ulcers,” by Katie Shepherd and Frances Stead Sellers
• The Washington Post’s “A Triumphant Antiabortion Movement Begins to Deal With Its Divisions,” by Rachel Roubein and Brittany Shammas
• NBC News’ “Abortion Rights Groups Look to Build on Their Victories With New Ballot Measures,” by Adam Edelman

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Part II: The State of the Abortion Debate 50 Years After ‘Roe’

KHN’s ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Part II: The State of the Abortion Debate 50 Years After ‘Roe’Episode Number: 282Published: Jan. 26, 2023

Tamar Haspel: A lot of us want to eat better for the planet, but we’re not always sure how to do it. I’m Tamar Haspel.

Michael Grunwald: And I’m Michael Grunwald. And this is “Climavores,” a show about eating on a changing planet.

Haspel: We’re here to answer all kinds of questions. Questions like: Is fake meat really a good alternative to beef? Does local food actually matter?

Grunwald: You can follow us or subscribe on Stitcher, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.

Julie Rovner: Hi, it’s Julie Rovner from KHN’s “What the Health?” What follows is Part II of a great panel discussion on the state of the abortion debate 50 years after Roe v. Wade, featuring Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, and Sarah Varney of KHN. If you missed Part I, you might want to go back and listen to that first. So, without further ado, here we go.

We already talked a little bit about the difficult legal situation that abortion providers or just OB-GYNs have been put into, worried about whether what they consider just medical care will be seen as an abortion and they’ll be dragged into court. But in Tennessee, doctors would actually have to prove in court that an abortion was medically necessary, which seems a bit backwards. So, basically, it’s do it, see if you get arrested, and then you’ll have to present an affirmative defense in court. But the other thing that we’re starting to see is doctors leaving states, women’s health clinics closing, medical students and residents choosing to train elsewhere. This could really lead to a doctor drain in significant parts of the country, right?

Sandhya Raman: Yeah, I was looking at before where some of the states that have some of the highest rates of maternal mortality, maternal morbidity, and just lower maternal health outcomes overall are some of the same ones that don’t have Medicaid expansion and also do not have access to abortion right now. And it’s one of the things where, looking ahead, there have been people sounding the alarm at how this is going to get amplified. And as folks that might be interested in this discipline that are in medical school, school or readying for residency, or another type of provider that works in this space, if they choose to not train in these states — and a lot of folks that train in states often end up staying in those states — even if there are changes in some of these laws in the near term, it could have a huge effect in the future in terms of who’s training and who’s staying there and who’s able to provide not just abortions, but other terms of pregnancy care and maternal care.

Sarah Varney: And the workaround has become much more difficult because it used to be that if you’re in a state where abortion was very difficult to access or even, say, Texas during S.B. 8, these medical students could go to other states for the training. But now that you have these huge swaths of the South and the Plains and the Midwest where they are not allowed to do abortions, there’s just not enough places for OB-GYN residents and medical students to go to train. I did a story about this last year as well and looked at these students who were in medical school, who were coming up to Match Day and at the end, at the very end before the deadline, actually changed their match altogether or changed their list of priorities altogether because they didn’t want to be in Texas. So instead of doing an OB-GYN residency in Texas, this one young woman changed to a family medicine practice in Maryland. And I think the thing that’s important for people to remember is that these are the future OB-GYNs that will help many of us with our pregnancies and births for many decades to come. And as we have seen, pregnancy is very complicated and it oftentimes doesn’t end well. You know, about 10% of all confirmed pregnancies end in miscarriage; a far higher number end in miscarriage that are not confirmed pregnancies. And these will be the doctors that are supposed to actually know how to do these procedures. So if you’re in a state like Texas and you have a daughter who’s 15 and you anticipate in 15 years she may want to have a baby, you have to think about what kind of medical care she can have access to then.

Rovner: I’ve talked to a lot of people, a lot of women, who want to get pregnant, who want to get pregnant and have kids, but they are worried about getting pregnant because if something goes wrong, they’re afraid they won’t be able to get appropriate medical care. They would like to get pregnant, but they would actually not like to risk their own lives in trying to have a baby. And that’s actually what we’re looking at in a number of these states. I guess this is the appropriate place to bring up the idea of “personhood,” the declaration, not medically based, that a separate person with separate rights is created at the moment of conception. That could have really sweeping ramifications, couldn’t it? They’re talking about that, I know, in several states.

Varney: Yes. You don’t have to probe far to find out that the pro-life movement is 100% behind a federal fetal rights … the Supreme Court last year didn’t take up a case about fetal rights yet, but many of the members of the court have expressed in previous writings, and even in the Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] decision, you saw [Justice Samuel] Alito using the language of the state of Mississippi that essentially granted to the fetus all of the … even, like, personality of a full human being. So I think this is going to get really tricky because Kristan Hawkins and many of the leaders of the movement, Jeanne Mancini, they do believe that there is no distinction between a zygote and a fetus and a full human being. So now this is really a religious belief. And it was interesting. I really struggled last year. I had to … I was basically assigned to write a story about, you know, when does life begin? And I think it’s an interesting question we have to ask ourselves as journalists: Why should we do that story? Is that, in a sense, propaganda for the pro-life movement? When really what the question should be is, you have a full human being, the woman, at what point should her rights be impeded upon? Right? And that’s essentially what the Roe decision tried to do, was to strike that balance. But now we’re in a whole new world where fetal rights are really the … they almost have supremacy over women’s rights.

Rovner: Yeah, I did two stories on When Does Life Begin? And it turned into one of them is … really the question is when does pregnancy begin? One of the doctors I talked to said, rather, that pregnancy begins when we can detect it, which is in many ways true. A doctor can’t say that you’re pregnant unless they can detect it at that point. But that’s a really important distinction medically between, you know, when does life begin philosophically and when does a pregnancy actually begin. But, obviously, in places that are going to declare personhood, this is going to get really complicated really fast because it would mean that you mostly couldn’t do IVF, that you can’t create embryos and then not implant them. And of course, the way IVF works for most people who are infertile and would like to have children is that you take out the eggs, you fertilize them, you grow them to a certain cell size, and then you implant them back into the woman. But you don’t generally use all of the embryos. And that would be illegal if every one of those embryos was an actual person. Could you take tax deductions for children if the child hasn’t been born yet, but you’re pregnant? I think you can already do that in Georgia, right?

Varney: Correct. Yeah. The Department of Revenue did that there.

Rovner: Yeah. This could be really, really far-reaching.

Varney: I mean, that’s what’s been going on in Alabama for years. … When the Alabama state Supreme Court years ago agreed with this argument that a law that was put in place to try and go after parents who were bringing their children to meth labs, that the notion of the environment was no longer just the meth lab, but the womb itself. And a child also then meant a fetus in the womb. Now you’re in that territory already. So Alabama’s a very good way to look into the future, in a sense.

Rovner: So basically, if you’re pregnant and go into a bar, you could be threatening the fetus.

Varney: I mean, there’s kind of no limit, right? Like, did you drive recklessly? Did you slip or did you fall on purpose? I mean, that’s what I was saying earlier about it’s really going to be up to these local prosecutors to figure out how far they want to take this.

Rovner: And that’s not hypothetical. We’ve seen cases about a woman who fell down the stairs and had a miscarriage and was prosecuted for throwing herself down the stairs.

Varney: Or a woman who was pregnant and got into an altercation in a parking lot of a big-box store and got shot and the fetus died. And then she was arrested. I mean, eventually they dropped the charges, but. yeah.

Rovner: Well, moving on. So with narrow majorities in both houses of Congress for the party in charge, changing federal law in either direction seems pretty unlikely for the next two years, which leaves the Biden administration to try to reassure people who support abortion rights. But the Biden administration doesn’t have a long list of things that can be done by executive action either, beyond what they’ve done with the abortion pill, which we mentioned already — the FDA has loosened some of those restrictions. How has the Biden administration managed to protect abortion rights?

Alice Miranda Ollstein: First, along the lines of the FDA, the FDA has been called on by the pro-abortion rights side to drop the remaining restrictions on the abortion pill. So they’ve dropped some, but they still require a special certification for the doctors who prescribe it, a special certification for the pharmacies that are just newly allowed to dispense it. Patients have to sign something saying they understand the risks. These are called REMS. These are on drugs that are considered dangerous. And a lot of medical groups and advocates argue that there isn’t evidence that this is necessary, that the safety profile of these drugs is better than a lot of drugs that don’t have these kinds of restrictions. And so they said that it would improve access to drop these remaining rules around the pills. Some have even called for them to be available over the counter, although I don’t see that happening anytime soon. Along the lines of preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place, the FDA also is sitting on a decision of whether or not to make just regular hormonal birth control available over the counter. So that’s one to watch as well. But the Biden administration have more things they could do. They have looked at providing abortions through the VA [ Department of Veterans Affairs]. That was a big one. Earlier this year, the president signed a memo just over the weekend directing the health secretary and others in the Cabinet to look at what they can do to improve access. We’ve seen similar statements and memos before. It’s not really clear what they’ll mean in practice. But I also want to go back to you saying that nothing is likely to happen in Congress. I agree on the legislative side, but I am watching closely on the appropriations side, because I think that’s where you could see some attempts to pull things in one direction or another in terms of where federal spending goes. And going back to the group’s wastewater strategy, one piece of that they want to do, the anti-abortion groups, is pressure Republican members of Congress to hold the FDA’s funding hostage until they do certain environmental studies on the impacts of the pills. That’s where I would watch.

Rovner: Yeah, and spending bills over the years have been the primary place to do legislating on abortion restrictions or take them off. It’s not just the Hyde Amendment that banned most federal spending for abortion. There are amendments tucked into lots of different spending bills restricting abortion and other types of reproductive health care. And when Democrats are in charge, they try to take them out. And when Republicans are in charge, they try to put them back in. So I agree with Alice. I think we’re going to see those fights, although it’s hard to imagine anything happening beyond the status quo. I don’t think either side has the ability to change it, but I suspect that they’re going to try. The administration has gone after some states on the federal EMTALA law, right? The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which basically says that hospitals have to stabilize and take in women in active labor. And basically, if that conflicts with an abortion ban again, like with the FDA and drugs, federal law should supersede the state law. But we haven’t really seen any place where that’s come to a head, right?

Raman: Idaho has been the main one to watch with the lawsuit there. And the Justice Department did a briefing this week before their reproductive rights council met. And they had said that that was one of the cases they’re still doing — the Idaho, in addition to the lawsuit on the VA rule that Alice mentioned, and then also an FDA rule that we talked about earlier. But they’re monitoring different things going forward. But I think one of the interesting things is that they haven’t cast a very huge net in terms of the different things that they’ve been involved with in states. It’s mainly been these three situations. And even Idaho, they’ve already in that legislature introduced a bill that would amend their law as it is now, to deal with some of the nuances so that they would adhere to EMTALA. I don’t know how far that could go through or any of the logistics with that, but I mean, that sort of thing, the Idaho situation could be solved more quickly if they’re able to get that done. And DOJ [the Department of Justice] thinks that that aligns. But it is interesting that they haven’t dug into a lot of the other state efforts yet, but that they have that on their radar.

Varney: We have seen a sort of political battle being waged, of course. So on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Vice President Kamala Harris was in Florida, in Tallahassee, making the 50th-anniversary-of-Roe speech. Clearly, she wants [Gov. Ron] DeSantis to be on notice that should he become a candidate in the presidential election, that Florida is very much in play. And Florida is interesting because they still have a 15-week ban. So it would not have been allowed under Roe, but it’s not as draconian as what these other states have, which is essentially nothing.

Rovner: Most of the surrounding states, too.

Varney: Correct. Yeah, exactly. So Florida has really become a receiving state for abortions, particularly in the last six months. I’m going to be interested to see if somebody like a DeSantis can even run for president from a state with a 15-week ban. I mean, he’s going to be under a lot of pressure, not simply just to do a six-week ban, but to do an outright ban altogether. So I think if he tries to thread that needle and try and get anti-abortion groups on board to support him, he’s going to have to show them more.

Rovner: That’s just about what we’re going to get to. But before we leave, what the Biden administration has done, I need to mention, because it’s my own personal hobbyhorse — that the FDA has finally come out and changed the label on the “morning-after pill” to point out that it is not an abortion pill, that it does not cause abortion, that the way it works is by preventing ovulation. So there is no fertilized egg and that at least we can maybe put that aside, finally. That label change happened in Europe 10 years ago, and for some reason it took the FDA until now to make that clarification.

Varney: But as you said, Julie, it doesn’t matter because it’s just what you believe about the drug. You know, and just to remind listeners that that drug I did — I mean, we’ve all done stories on Plan B over the years — but the one I did recently was how Plan B is actually owned by a private equity company, actually two private equity companies. And they would not go to the mat to the FDA to get this thing changed. They could have done it years ago. So now that the FDA has made this … it’s just like anything, any kind of misinformation, that people who don’t support it can just simply say, well, the FDA is biased or that’s not actually how it works.

Rovner: True.

Varney: But I don’t think it will put it to bed.

Rovner: Well, quickly, let us turn to 2023 and what we might see for the rest of this year. We’ll start with the anti-abortion side. Obviously, overturning Roe was not the culmination of their efforts. They have some pretty ambitious goals for the coming year, right? Things like travel bans and limiting exceptions in some of these states. Sandhya, I see you nodding.

Raman: There are so many things, I think, on my radar that I’m hoping to watch this year just because we are in this whole new era where it might have been three years ago a lot easier for us to predict which things might be caught up in litigation, which things might be struck down. But I think now, after the Dobbs decision, even after the Texas S.B. 8 law that we mentioned earlier, it’s a lot more difficult to see what sort of things will go in effect that might not have been able to go into effect before. And one thing I think has been interesting is that the anti-abortion movement had been in unison before this on some of their traditional Hyde exceptions — that abortions to save the life of the mother, in cases of rape and incest were something that was broadly on board, that those would be allowed. And I think we’ve seen a lot increasingly in different states, things that have been brought up by different state lawmakers that would chip away at that, that vary by state, whether or not what defines is medically necessary to save a life. And even when we were talking about Idaho earlier with the EMTALA requirements or … there was a great piece in The New Yorker last year about the anti-abortion activist who really wants to lobby against rape exceptions because she was born as a product of rape and is using her own experience in that. And so I think that will be a very interesting thing to watch because there is not a uniform agreement on that. Whereas some of the things that have been taken out, there’s a lot more strong backing for across the board.

Rovner: Yeah, that’s actually my next question, which is we’re starting to see not only a split within the anti-abortion community about what to pursue, but a little bit of distance between the Republicans and the anti-abortion forces. And I think there’s a lot of Republicans who are uncomfortable with going further or who are uncomfortable even in some of the states that don’t have exceptions. I mean, are we looking at a potential breakup of this Republican anti-abortion team that’s been so valuable to both sides over the last few decades?

Ollstein: I wouldn’t call it a breakup, but the tension is absolutely there. I mean, I wouldn’t call it a breakup just because, where else are they going to go? I mean, the Democratic Party is much more supportive of abortion rights as a whole than even just a few years ago. And so, really, they know Republicans are their best bet for getting these restrictions passed. But there is this interesting tension right now. I think a lot of it is competing interpretations of what happened in this most recent election. You have anti-abortion groups who insist that the takeaway should be candidates didn’t run hard enough on banning and restricting abortion and were too wishy-washy, and that’s why they lost. And then you have a lot of other Republicans and party officials, party leaders who feel that they were too aggressive on promoting abortion restrictions and that’s why they lost. Also, you know, I will say this isn’t purely, purely cynical politics. A lot of Republican state lawmakers have told us they’re genuinely concerned now that they’re actually seeing the laws they drafted and voted for take effect and have consequences that they maybe didn’t intend. And they’re hearing from these state medical groups who are pleading for changes to be made. And so some of them say, OK, we want to get this right. We want to go back and make fixes. And the anti-abortion groups are telling them, no, don’t create loopholes. Don’t water down these laws. And so you do have this really interesting tug of war playing out at the state level right now. And because of what you said about the federal level, the state level is really where it’s at.

Varney: And I was going to make two points. One is that the split is also really developing between the national groups and the state and local groups. So while the national groups may say, yes, we support a 15-week ban in Florida as a step to get to something else, the local groups are gung-ho. I mean, they’re in extremely gerrymandered districts. You look at Florida and Texas, they elected the most anti-abortion state legislature in history so far. And, you know, these are people coming from extremely safe seats. And then you’ll see that the city level — the city sanctuary of the unborn, I believe it’s called — that movement, they really see them going down to even the local-local level to try and get that in effect.

Rovner: Well, I think in a lot of places, states that are very affirmatively supportive of abortion rights or have it in their constitution, are trying to move that down to the local level, to the city level, to see if they can actually have success in limiting abortion locality by locality. All right. Well, meanwhile, what’s the other side doing? What’s the agenda for the abortion rights side? It’s going to be, as we pointed out, it’s gonna be kind of hard for them to advance very much.

Ollstein: Yes. I think that there is a lot of excitement around the results last year using state-level ballot initiatives in red and purple states, putting the question of abortion rights to the general public, because on all six ballots last year, the abortion rights side prevailed. Some of those were more offensive, some of those were more defensive. But in all six, they swept. And so they are really excited about trying to replicate that this year. Of course, it’s not possible in every state to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot for a popular vote. But in states where it is possible and where it could make a difference, including some states where abortion is already banned and they could try to unban it through the popular vote process, that’s really something they’re looking at. And then, of course, even though our federal judiciary has become a lot more conservative over time with the appointments, courts have still been convinced to block a lot of these state abortion restrictions. And so there are efforts to bring lots of different, interesting legal theories. You know, one that caught my attention is trying to make religious freedom arguments against abortion bans, saying these abortion bans infringe on the rights of religious people who believe in the right to abortion, which is sort of flipping that narrative there.

Rovner: There have been a bunch of Jewish groups who have filed cases saying that.

Ollstein: Exactly. Judaism, Islam, certain Christian denominations, all support abortion rights. And so there’s an interesting tactic there. Also pointing to language in state constitutions about privacy rights and arguing that should extend to abortion. And so a lot of interesting stuff there.

Raman: I would add to that, in terms of another tactic that’s kind of flipping what the other side has been doing, a long-term strategy of the anti-abortion movement has been prioritizing judicial elections and a long-term thing of … just in the Senate, we saw, you know, wanting to get a lot of judges confirmed that had pro-life beliefs. And you can even look to where the women’s march over the weekend, that the state … one that they were prioritizing was in Wisconsin, which was held there, to jump-start the fact that they have a state Supreme Court race coming up. They were 4-3 conservative majority right now. And the judge that is retiring is conservative. So getting a new judge that supports abortion rights could really open a path to overturn the ban there. Even though judicial elections are considered nonpartisan, there are often ways to tell clues about where someone might rule in the future. And so, I think, looking at things like that in different states as a way to dial back some of the things that the other side has been doing will be an interesting thing to watch, too.

Rovner: All right. Well, I think that’s it for our discussion. Thank you, for those of you who have hung with us this long. I hope we’ve given a good overview of the landscape. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. Usually that’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. But this week I’ve asked each of the panelists to choose their favorite or most meaningful story about reproductive health from the last year. As always, don’t worry if you miss it; we will post the links on the podcast page at khn.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Alice, why don’t you go first this week?

Ollstein: Yes, I think I’ve promoted this story before, but I just can’t say enough good things about it. It’s really stuck with me. It’s from the New York Times Magazine by Lizzie Presser, and it’s called “She Wasn’t Ready for Children. A Judge Wouldn’t Let Her Have an Abortion.” And it really digs into what happens to teenagers who need to get their parent’s consent and can’t in order to have an abortion. They have this judicial bypass process where their lives, the fate of their lives are in the hands of an individual judge, who, in many cases, as this article demonstrates, come with their own biases and preconceptions about abortion. And then it just follows this one teenager who was denied an abortion, ended up having twins, and just completely struggled financially, her mental health. And she in the end said, you know, I knew what was right for me. I knew I needed an abortion. And it’s a very moving, painful story that shines a light on a piece of the story that I think is overlooked.

Rovner: Yeah. Sandhya.

Raman: For my extra credit, I picked a story that also has stuck in my head for a long time, kind of like Alice. So it’s “‘We Need to Defend This Law’: Inside an Anti-Abortion Meeting with Tennessee’s GOP Lawmakers,” from Kavitha Surana from ProPublica. I really thought this was one of the most interesting pieces on this topic that I read last year. The author got audio from a webinar in Tennessee hosted by the Tennessee Right to Life on strategy on the movement going ahead in their state. They talk a lot about the Tennessee ban and how it has narrow life exceptions as a model for other states and how the burden of proof would be on the doctor. And then they have some quotes from a Tennessee lawmaker who suggests things that I think the other side has sounded the alarm about: mining data to investigate doctors, how to push back against rape and incest exceptions. And I think one of the things that really struck me was when they brought up IVF, some of the advocates during the meeting that they had said that two years from now, next year, or three years from now, IVF and contraception can be regulated on the table. But that’s like next steps.

Rovner: Absolutely. That was a great scoop, that story. Sarah.

Varney: So I actually picked a radio segment. It’s about a 12-minute-long radio segment that I did with Science Friday. On “Why Contraceptive Failure Rates Matter in a Post-Roe America.” So one of the things I kept hearing was, well, women are just going to have to really double up on contraception or make sure that they’re being responsible about taking their contraception. So it turns out that there’s a textbook on contraceptive technology and in that is a whole page on contraceptive failure rates, which show you what contraceptive failure rates should be in a laboratory and what they are actually out in the real world. So, for instance, the typical-use failure rate for birth control pills is 7%. So that means that seven out of 100 women on pills could experience pregnancy in the first year of use. So then I went and found the data that shows us the number of women ages 15 to 49 who are on specific methods of birth control, everything from the Depo-Provera to the contraceptive ring and patch to male condoms, to IUDs, to birth control pills. And you’ll see on both the Science Friday and the KHN website, we have these wonderful graphics where you can see that in one year of people using male condoms, because of their failure rate is about 13% in the real world, that could lead to up to 513,000 wanted pregnancies. Birth control pills, based on the number of women using birth control pills, up to 460,000 pregnancies a year in people who are actually using contraception to not get pregnant. So I think these data visualization is really important. And you can hear interviews that I did with the researcher and the physician who actually is the author of this textbook, as well as one of the world’s leading reproductive endocrinologists who talks about what’s next in contraceptive efficacy.

Rovner: Yes, I loved that story. Well, my story is also a radio story. It’s from NPR by Carrie Feibel. And it’s called “Because of Texas’ Abortion Law, Her Wanted Pregnancy Became a Medical Nightmare.” And it’s from July. And the events that it chronicles happened before the overturn of Roe v. Wade, because, as we’ve said, Texas’ abortion ban was already in effect. By now, we’ve heard this story many times. A woman with desired pregnancies, water breaks prematurely, which would normally result in a quote-unquote “medical termination.” Except the doctors and hospitals aren’t sure how sick the mom needs to be before the pregnancy actually threatens her life. And any other abortion is illegal, and they could get in legal trouble. So they put her through days of hell and sickness before she starts to show signs of sepsis and just before she and her husband were actually going to fly out of the state to get the pregnancy terminated. But this was the first of these stories that I read. And it hit me very hard. And I have such respect for the couple here who were willing to come forward and publicize all that the women called these gray areas of abortion, which lawmakers often think of as black-and-white. It was just one of those stories that sticks with you.

All right. That is our show for this week. As always, if you enjoyed the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our ever-patient producer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth — all one word — @kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m @jrovner. Sandhya?

Raman: @SandhyaWrites

Rovner: Alice?

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein

Rovner: Sarah.

Varney: And @SarahVarney4

Rovner: Will be back in your feed with our regular news rundown next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio Producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KHN’s What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KHN

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KHN’s weekly health policy news podcast, “What the Health?” A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book “Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z,” now in its third edition.

The abortion debate has changed dramatically in the seven months since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and its nationwide right to abortion. Nearly half the states have banned or restricted the procedure, even though the public, at the ballot box, continues to show support for abortion rights.

In this special two-part podcast, taped the week of the 50th anniversary of the Roe decision, an expert panel delves into the fight, the sometimes-unintended side effects, and what each side plans for 2023.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, and Sarah Varney of KHN.

Panelists

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories

Sarah Varney
KHN

@sarahvarney4

Read Sarah's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Exemptions to state abortion bans came into question shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe, with national debate surrounding the case of a 10-year-old in Ohio who was forced to travel out of state to have an abortion — although, as a rape victim, she should have been able to obtain an abortion in her home state.
• The restrictions in many states have caused problems for women experiencing miscarriages, as medical providers fear repercussions of providing care — whether affecting their medical licenses or malpractice insurance coverage, or even drawing criminal charges. So far, there have been no reports of doctors being charged.
• A Christian father in Texas won a lawsuit against the federal government that bars the state’s Title X family-planning clinics from dispensing birth control to minors without parental consent. That change poses a particular problem for rural areas, where there may not be another place to obtain contraception, and other states could follow suit. The Title X program has long required clinics to serve minors without informing their parents.
• Top abortion opponents are leaning on misinformation to advance their causes, including to inaccurately claim that birth control is dangerous.
• Medication abortion is the next target for abortion opponents. In recent months, the FDA has substantially loosened restrictions on the “abortion pill,” though only in the states where abortion remains available. Some opponents are getting creative by citing environmental laws to argue, without evidence, that the abortion pill could contaminate the water supply.
• Restrictions are also creating problems for the maternal care workforce, with implications possibly rippling for decades to come. Some of the states with the worst maternal health outcomes also have abortion bans, leading providers to rethink how, and where, they train and practice.
• Looking ahead, a tug of war is occurring on state and local levels among abortion opponents about what to do next. Some lawmakers who voted for state bans are expressing interest in at least a partial rollback, while other opponents are pushing back to demand no changes to the bans. With Congress divided, decisions about federal government spending could draw the most attention for those looking for national policy changes.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Elizabeth Nash, who tracks state reproductive health policies for the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights research group.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Part I: The State of the Abortion Debate 50 Years After ‘Roe’

KHN’s ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Part I: The State of the Abortion Debate 50 Years After ‘Roe’Episode Number: 281Published: Jan. 26, 2023

Tamar Haspel: A lot of us want to eat better for the planet, but we’re not always sure how to do it. I’m Tamar Haspel.

Michael Grunwald: And I’m Michael Grunwald. And this is “Climavores,” a show about eating on a changing planet.

Haspel: We’re here to answer all kinds of questions. Questions like: Is fake meat really a good alternative to beef? Does local food actually matter?

Grunwald: You can follow us or subscribe on Stitcher, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.

Julie Rovner: Hi! This is Julie Rovner from KHN’s “What the Health?” We’re doing a special episode this week trying to summarize the state of the abortion debate in the wake of the Supreme Court’s overturn of Roe v. Wade. We have the very best group of experts and reporters I could think of. And the conversation was so good and so long that for the first time we’re breaking it into two parts. So here’s Part I. 

Today we are joined via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.

Rovner: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Good morning.

Rovner: And my KHN colleague Sarah Varney.

Sarah Varney: Hey.

Rovner: We will actually get to our panel a little bit later. That’s because on this special episode of “What the Health?” we’re taking a deep dive into the state of abortion access on the 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. We’re going to get our bearings first by hearing from Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights research group. As you’ll hear, Elizabeth is a walking encyclopedia of state abortion rules and regulations. So here’s the interview, and then we’ll be back for our group discussion. 

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast Elizabeth Nash, who tracks state legislative activity on reproductive health issues for the Guttmacher Institute. Elizabeth knows more than probably any other single person about the state of abortion laws and how they’ve changed over time and has been an invaluable resource for me over the many years I have covered this issue. I could think of no one better to kick off our special episode on the state of abortion rights in 2023. Elizabeth, welcome to “What the Health?”

Elizabeth Nash: Thank you. That is the most flattering introduction, and I am glad I have been able to help.

Rovner: Well, I can honestly say that I’ve given up on trying to keep track of where abortion is legal, illegal, or somehow restricted since Roe was overturned last June. Is it safe to say this is the most rapid change in state rules since you’ve been tracking this?

Nash: Yes, to put a point on that, I started tracking 1999. So I do have some sense of the longevity of what we’re talking about. And going back even further, the rules weren’t changing all that quickly in 1973 or ’5. I mean, they were changing somewhat quickly. But when we look at what is happening right now, it really is a sea change, right? We have a quarter of the states — so there are 14 states — where abortion is unavailable, right? In 12 of those states, that’s due to abortion bans. In two other states,it’s because of other things that have happened. And so you’re looking at, already, the South, the Plains, the Midwest … abortion access has been extremely difficult to come by. And then we’re seeing what’s happening in the progressive states, at the same time, to expand access. So it’s been on both ends of the spectrum, right? Expanding and restricting. And it literally is all over the map.

Rovner: Is there any way to divide them into categories that make it easier to track? I know in some states …  we all know about these six states where there were voter ballot measures. Some of them have been legislative issues and some of them are stuck in court on both sides, right?

Nash: Oh, yes, absolutely. So beyond these 14 states where abortion is unavailable … so you’re really thinking about the Texases, Louisianas, Mississippis, Arkansas, Oklahomas of the world. There’s another group of states where there are abortion bans that were enacted before the Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] ruling and now are tied up in court. And we’re thinking about states like Utah, Wyoming, also Indiana, even though that one happened after the Dobbs ruling. They came into special session and passed an abortion ban and now it’s tied up in the courts. But we have a lot of pieces that are moving through the court system. And what is different now than before the Dobbs ruling in June is that most of these cases are in state court. And so we’re now having to rely on state constitutions to protect abortion rights. And in many of these states, the state constitutions haven’t been evaluated and tested in this way. So this is a whole brand-new batch, essentially, of court cases about what do we expect? What are the kinds of clauses that are being used to support abortion rights and to hopefully strike down these abortion bans?

Rovner: I know for years, even decades, anti-abortion groups were united in their desire to see Roe overturned. Now that it has been, are you surprised with how much farther some are trying to get states to go beyond just straight abortion bans?

Nash: You know, I think Dobbs came down and those … activists and advocates in the movement said they’re not going to stop here. And they haven’t, right? So the general public thought, oh, maybe this is settled. And those in the movement said, no, wait, this is one more step in the journey. Also, yes, we are seeing more efforts even in these states that have abortion bans that aren’t even implemented looking to pass more restrictions. And you’re like, what could they possibly do? Well, there’s been a real focus by abortion opponents on medication abortion. Because they know people are accessing medication abortion online, they want … abortion opponents want to try to hem that in and stop that from happening. So more restrictions on medication abortion, even potentially legislation that would prevent access to websites that have information about abortion on them. So looking at a range of types of policies around medication abortion, also seeing some more restrictions potentially that could prevent abortion funds and support organizations from doing their good work. ’Cause one of the conversations after the Dobbs ruling in June was, well, if people leave the state to access abortion, could we ban them from travel? Well, we probably won’t see a lot of legislation that specifically bans people from leaving the state for an abortion. But we will see some legislation around trying to give them fewer options, such as making it harder for abortion funds and practical support organizations to fulfill their mission or legislation that prevents businesses from supporting their employees to go to another state and access abortion.

Rovner: I was struck by a piece you wrote last month on exceptions to abortion bans, particularly for rape or incest or the life or health of the pregnant woman. I am old enough to remember the early 1990s when Congress spent several years debating whether to add back rape and incest exceptions to the federal “Hyde Amendment.” They had been there originally. They were dropped out in the 1980s and then there was a huge fight over getting them back. But you point out that for all the effort on the issue, these exceptions don’t actually mean very much. Why is that?

Nash: Well, to put it in a few words, abortion opponents see exceptions as loopholes, and they’re trying to narrow those so-called loopholes so that it’s impossible to access care. So I think the public generally had this sense that, oh, there must be exceptions if someone’s health is at risk, or their life is in danger and perhaps some other situations, right? So that just general understanding the public might have. Well, in fact, one, those kinds of health exceptions just really never existed at all. And the fight really was what you’re talking about, around rape and incest, maybe a genetic anomaly of the fetus. And on top of that, when they were added, they really are these incredibly narrowly worded exceptions that make it impossible for someone to get an abortion under them. A lot of times people would be required to report to the legal authorities. Well, that could be very traumatizing for a sexual assault survivor. They may not be there emotionally. They may be expecting additional blowback from the authorities. Unfortunately, that has been part of the history, right? And so, having to relive all of that is a problem. So really, these exceptions are basically meaningless. And yet we’re expecting to see fights over them in 2023. And particularly in some of these states where we’ve seen abortion bans. Tennessee is one example where there’s an abortion ban in effect and basically there is no access to abortion, in part because there’s a provision of that ban that says that the provider has to give out an affirmative defense if they provide an abortion. And, basically, that means that there will be no abortions provided in Tennessee.

Rovner: Because if you provide one, you’ll still end up in court, even if it’s legitimate.

Nash: Yes, you’ll end up in court. It’s a huge expense. And if you lose, you’ll have all of these penalties and, potentially, loss of license … there’s a lot at stake. And so in Tennessee, there is a potential of a debate around exceptions. And again, I think this is about abortion opponents trying to make their bans look less bad. Right? This is about, oh, well, we’ll add in some exceptions. People will think we’re doing something and, in effect, it means nothing. So really, where we need to start moving towards — and, of course, advocates are moving towards this — it’s more about how do you bring along the public and others who need to roll back abortion bans? They don’t serve any public health good.

Rovner: There seems to be this growing — I won’t even call it a rift yet, but a separation between a lot of Republicans who’ve traditionally voted for abortion bans because they knew they weren’t going to go into effect. So it looked good. And they have that section of their base that they make happy. Well, now that we’re shooting with real bullets, if you will, some of those Republicans seem to be getting a little antsy about some of the bans, particularly when they’re hearing about doctors who are afraid to provide not just abortion care, but sometimes routine or emergency care for women with problem pregnancies.

Nash: Yeah, it’s very true. And yes, Republicans in these states, particularly conservative states, are in a bit of a pickle. They’re trying to placate their base that has been arguing for abortion bans without any exceptions. And now they see their opportunity with the fall of Roe. And then you have the public, the much larger public that supports abortion access and, in fact, is getting more supportive of abortion access because the rubber has hit the road. We are seeing the impact of abortion bans, and it is around abortion access. It is also around what you’re seeing in maternal health care. And also in these conservative states, we’re seeing a conversation among providers that is, Do I stay in this state? Can I remain here knowing that I cannot provide all the care my patients need and deserve?

Rovner: That’s the big irony, is that banning abortion could end up having fewer rather than more pregnancies, because I know a lot of women who are afraid to get pregnant lest they have complications that they won’t be able to get treated.

Nash: Yeah, absolutely. And if patients are feeling supported and know that they can get the care that they need, then that can change the whole trajectory, at least for a few years of their life. Because people may decide, OK, I’m going to delay my childbearing until I feel comfortable and in a situation where I feel that my health will be taken care of.

Rovner: Well, I think there will be a lot more for you to follow this year and in the next couple of years. You’re going to have to make your spreadsheet bigger. I look forward to continuing to do this. Elizabeth Nash, thank you for your work, and thank you again for joining us.

Nash: Thank you so much for having me. It was a real treat to talk to you. I followed your work for forever.

Rovner: We will definitely have you back.

OK. We are back with Alice [Miranda] Ollstein, Sandhya Raman, and Sarah Varney. I’ve tried to order this discussion by topic, and while we won’t get to everything, I hope we’ll at least get a good idea of the landscape since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last June. I want to start by talking about some of the immediate or almost immediate effects of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on June 24. Abortion rights advocates had been arguing for years, in some cases decades, about some of the things that might happen if Roe was overturned. Mostly, they were told the equivalent of “Don’t worry your pretty little heads over those things; they won’t happen.” But in fact, a lot of them did, starting almost immediately with the case of a 10-year-old in Ohio who was raped and had to go to Indiana to end the resulting pregnancy. Abortion opponents first claimed it was made up. Then when it was proved true, the Indiana attorney general went after the doctor who treated the child. This whole fight is still actually going on, isn’t it? Alice, I see you nodding.

Ollstein: Yes. So there are not criminal charges against this doctor or, that we know of, any doctor yet. You know, that was one feared thing that has not materialized, mainly because doctors have proven very cautious and unwilling to even do anything that could be seen as violating these state bans. So what’s at issue in the Indiana case is around the medical licensing — so not criminal charges. But still it’s very intimidating for the doctor. Her name was dragged all over the news and she got lots of threats, etc. And I think what really jumped out most for me from that case is, theoretically, the child should have been able to get an abortion in Ohio under these purported exemptions to the state’s ban. And yet both the child and her caretakers thought it was necessary to go out of state. And that really shows how these exemptions may exist on paper but are really difficult and, in some cases, impossible to use in practice. 

Varney: And the other thing that that case I think shows was that the response from those who oppose abortion was sort of immediate, that this did not happen. This was made up. We saw Jim Jordan come out with some tweets essentially saying this was just a hoax. And then when they actually found this 27-year-old man and they DNA-tested him and they arrested him, there’s been crickets actually from that side. And I think that also indicated to us what we’ve been seeing now over the last couple of months. What I heard on Friday at the March for Life in Washington and again at the National Pro-Life Summit as well in Washington, just this absolute denial, really, that all of these things are happening. I brought specific cases to people that I interviewed, both the soldiers on the ground to leaders of the movement, to say, “Here’s what’s happening in Louisiana, this particular case in Texas.” And 2-to-1, they said, “This is not happening. This is made up. These physicians are just doing this because they want to send a message.” And then when you interview obstetricians and gynecologists who are opposed to abortion rights, they too say that, “Oh, this is all just made up, that the exceptions are very clear. We know what to do to save a woman’s life.” So I think this is a whole other front … this sort of misinformation campaign about the actual impact on the ground of these abortion bans.

Rovner: Yeah. And to follow up on that, I mean, another thing that was predicted is that the lives and health of pregnant women who were not seeking abortions but who experienced pregnancy complications could be negatively affected. And that is definitely happening, right? These are among the things that the anti-abortion movement says are not happening. But we’ve now seen story after story of women, particularly, whose water breaks too early for even premature infants to survive and who end up basically being stuck in this limbo because their doctor is worried about violating the law, but also worried about keeping the woman alive.

Raman: There are a number of doctors who’ve spoken up about some of the risks that they felt firsthand of defying some of these state bans, even when it’s a serious health or emergency risk or having to go through hospital lawyers before they can act. And I think there’ve been a lot of cases, especially in Missouri and Texas, and I think the Texas Medical Association last year even appealed to the state medical board because of the difficulty they had in treating some of these serious health issues for pregnant individuals because of the risk … that it just kind of creates this layered effect where, on one hand, some of these state laws don’t even exactly lay out what is an emergency, what isn’t an emergency, how do you define imminent death, how mental health fits in? Even though that can be, as we know, a serious health risk as well. And it just — a number of layers to figuring out an already tricky situation when dealing with an emergency health situation should be pretty straightforward.

Rovner: And yet … 

Varney: And it’s interesting, too, I also posed this exact question to marchers on Friday. And 2-to-1 they said, “Well, first of all, we don’t really understand pregnancy. We don’t understand fetal development. We certainly don’t understand fetal demise. We’re … none of us are doctors.” None of the people out there, most of them at least, were not doctors. But, you know, saying very specifically, that case in Louisiana that KHN and NPR reported about a woman who was … she had a 4-year-old. She wanted to be pregnant. She started hemorrhaging, was obviously miscarrying. She went to a hospital. She was turned away. She was bleeding profusely, in intense pain, went back to a second hospital, also turned away because they could still detect a faint fetal activity, fetal cardiac activity. And so when I posed this really specific question to some of the people at the march, they said, “Well, this is what God wants. God wants her to return to her home and let this baby die, or she should birth this baby and then bury it.” This sort of disconnect between what’s happening to a person who’s miscarrying and their religious beliefs about what should happen are completely far apart.

Ollstein: Yeah, what’s really come to the fore is that the treatment for a miscarriage or a pregnancy complication and an abortion medically are the same in so many cases. It’s the same drugs you take. It’s the same procedure to empty the uterus. And so restrictions on one will inevitably impact the other. And that’s what we’re really hearing from doctors who, again, because of the chilling effect created by these laws, are afraid to do things that would risk them getting charged, risk them losing their licenses, you know, issues with malpractice insurance. And so they are really erring on the side of not providing this care in a lot of circumstances.

Rovner: And sometimes there are women who are not even pregnant getting caught up in this. In Alabama, a woman was jailed for using illegal drugs that threatened her unborn child, except she’s now suing for false imprisonment because she was not pregnant. Some states are basically criminalizing every stage of pregnancy, right?

Ollstein: This has been an issue since before Dobbs, for sure. I mean, and it’s not just red states. In California, two women were incarcerated for taking drugs and having pregnancy loss. And so I think this has been exacerbated by the fall of Roe v. Wade and this new aggressive era with the anti-abortion officials becoming emboldened. But it’s certainly not the first time we’ve seen this happen.

Rovner: And Sarah, you were talking about Alabama, in particular?

Varney: Alabama has sort of perfected this. Steve Marshall, who’s their current attorney general, was a local prosecutor in a county that essentially came up with this notion that you could extend these chemical endangerment laws to pregnant women. There was a woman who was in prison for 10 years after she used drugs during her pregnancy and had a stillbirth. And it’s hard to say that these kinds of laws are helping these women or helping them with their addiction issues. And I think the thing that I’m really on the lookout for — and we’re all national reporters, but I’m sure, like many of you, I travel to these states — I think what’s difficult is that in a place like Alabama, this is really now up to local prosecutors. So, as we saw, that was a case where a family member called the police and reported this woman saying that she was using drugs and that she was pregnant. Now, did this family member actually know she was pregnant or not, or was she just trying to seek some sort of revenge? I have no idea. But you’re right. She was then jailed and then kept saying, “Give me a pregnancy test, I’ll take it!” And then, sure enough, she, of course, wasn’t pregnant. But, you know, it’s up to individual prosecutors in Idaho, in Alabama, in Texas. They can sort of do what they want now, and especially in these states that have fetal rights written into their constitutions. This is really the next front.

Rovner: Well, and of course, the biggest thing of all that we were told — insisted it was not going to happen — anti-abortion activists said they never intended nor wanted to limit birth control. But that really is starting to happen, isn’t it?

Raman: I mean, we could even see this last year. The House did their vote on a bill to codify contraception, and it did not get much bipartisan support. And of the eight Republicans then that voted for it, five of them are no longer in office. One of them, in particular, that is there of the three, Nancy Mace of South Carolina, spoke a lot when we had the recent abortion votes in the House about how she wanted there to be votes on things like birth control first, before they went to look at abortion. But it seems like there’s not as much an appetite among Republican lawmakers federally to do that right now.

Rovner: Yeah, I think Nancy Mace is trying to be the Lisa Murkowski of the House, trying to have it all ways.

Varney: I’m actually about to go to Texas to do a story for the NewsHour about this Title X lawsuit. So this was a father, you guys probably heard about this, but this is a Christian father of three daughters who sued to say — his lawyer is Jonathan Mitchell, who was the lawyer for the S.B. 8 case and is involved in a lot of anti-abortion conservative causes. And …

Rovner: S.B. 8, for those who don’t remember, it’s the Texas law that was in effect before Roe was overturned, that basically — the bounty to turn in somebody you think has something to do with abortion, and you can win money!

Varney: Correct. And was clearly in violation of Roe but was allowed to stand. Well, so, this lawyer, on behalf of this father and his children, has sued the federal government to the same federal judge that S.B. 8 went through. And they won. So now in Texas, if you are a minor, you cannot go into Title X clinics for the first time since the Nixon administration and get birth control. And if you live in a rural area like Amarillo, you really don’t have any other options. And of course, there’s lots of evidence that shows why parental consent actually is harmful when it comes to reproductive health, particularly for girls. So now we’re going to be shooting that story. But I think there’s a lot of concern among the Title X administrators in the different states where abortion is banned, and there are these very active anti-abortion groups, that they will essentially extend this Title X ruling to their other states without even having to go to the courts. They’ll just say, well, they did it in Texas, so we can now do it in Alabama.

Rovner: And funny, there was a giant fight about exactly this in the Reagan administration, which was before I started covering this. But I read about it. It was called the “Squeal Rule.” It was an effort to actually require parental involvement in girls getting birth control from Title X clinics. And it was struck down by a federal judge. Basically, it has been doctrine ever since, and law, that teens are allowed to go seek care from Title X clinics and they don’t have to tell their parents. Obviously, Title X clinics don’t provide abortions. They’re not allowed to by federal law. But teens are definitely, have been allowed to seek birth control without parental involvement. And if this lawsuit ends up getting upheld, that’s going to change, too.

Varney: I’ll be interested, though, if I can ask, because I’m curious about your opinions on all this, is that, again, when I was at the march and that summit, you know, I asked every single person I interviewed, well, OK, so you want to stop abortion? What about birth control? Knowing full well that for many of these people, most of them are deeply religious and they do not believe in birth control. But Kristan Hawkins, from the Students for Life, her line, which I have heard from others as well, is, quote, “Chemical birth control is dangerous to women.” So I will be curious to see how we as journalists confront the misinformation that has always been percolating in pro-life circles for many, many years. But how will we confront that misinformation in our stories? You know, I actually chose, in my reporting for the NewsHour over the weekend, not to use that clip, because I would then have to go into several paragraphs of, actually, that’s not the case. So I’m curious what we’re going to do about that, because they will make that claim. And then are we going to treat it in the same way that we treated, you know, Donald Trump when he would sort of make things up? 

Rovner: Well, there’s also the further complication — if you go back to the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case in 2014 — is that some people and organizations oppose some types of birth control because they say — this is sort of famously with the IUD, the intrauterine device — that it can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, and therefore that’s a very early abortion, or some types of progesterone, [that] only birth control can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. It turns out in most cases that is not the case scientifically, but that is still their belief. And the Hobby Lobby case basically said, if you believe it, that’s your religion and you can have it that way. So it’s already a complicated case, and I’m sure we will see more of this going forward. But I want to drill a little bit deeper on the future of the abortion pill, mifepristone, which actually does end a pregnancy. It’s the first of a two-drug combination used for medication abortion. Both sides in the abortion debate seem to be zeroing in on medication abortion as the next big target: abortion rights forces, because the ability to end an early pregnancy without going to a physical abortion clinic or having surgery, it’s preferable for now a majority of people seeking abortions; anti-abortion forces are against it for pretty much the same reason. It’s a way for abortions to continue mostly out of public sight. So let’s start with the abortion rights side. What’s being done to make the pill more easily available? We’ve had a lot of activity on that front just in the last couple of weeks, right?

Ollstein: Yeah. So there’s been efforts for years now to petition the FDA to loosen the restrictions around who can get the pill, where they can get it, when they can get it. And that has slowly led to those rules being loosened over time. So a couple of years ago, the FDA moved to allow telemedicine prescriptions and patients being able to receive the pills by mail. At first, they said, OK, just during the pandemic because it’s too dangerous to go into a clinic. And then they said, OK, we looked at the data, and actually this is safe to do permanently. And then just very recently, they said that those prescriptions can also be sent to retail pharmacies. So you can pick them up at your local CVS or Walgreens. And that is broadening where and when and how patients can get these pills. But again, only in states where their use is not already banned or severely restricted, which is, you know, a lot of states right now. Some of those laws are blocked in court, so the exact count is always fluctuating. But it’s around 18 states where that is not … those options for obtaining the pills are not there for patients right now.

Rovner: There’s also lawsuits challenging these bans, right? Sandhya, I see you nodding.

Raman: We have three main lawsuits that I think that we’re all watching right now. We have one from last year from anti-abortion groups that is challenging the 2000 approval of mifepristone, on the grounds of it should rescind the approval by the FDA. And so the next step is, as early as next month, the judge there in that case could issue a preliminary injunction that would mean that there wouldn’t be mifepristone nationwide, not just in that district. And the thing about that case that’s interesting is, I think, regardless of what we see happen there, it will get appealed and that would go to the 5th Court of Appeals, which is notorious for doing a lot of the Obamacare cases that we’ve seen in the health space over the past few years.

Rovner: And a lot of abortion cases over the years, too.

Raman: Yes, yes.

Rovner: Because it’s what Texas and the 5th Circuit in Texas and Louisiana and a couple of other Southern states. 

Raman: Yeah. And then the second two … came yesterday. And they’re interesting in that they’re on the state level in that one of the main manufacturers of mifepristone GenBioPro is suing in West Virginia over the fact that the state abortion laws that they say are at odds with mifepristone in the state due to the near-total ban. And then, in North Carolina, a physician is also suing saying that the state laws essentially are also at war with the federal jurisdiction over this.

Rovner: Yeah, basically, they’re saying that states can’t individually, basically, make unavailable a drug that’s been approved by the FDA because think of how that would be if every state could decide whether every drug was going to be legal in that state, we would have basically chaos with a lot more than just the abortion pill.

Ollstein: Arguably, we do, basically, have chaos right now.

Rovner: That is a fair point. There were cases in Massachusetts several years ago about a new opiate that eventually there’s a federal court that said, no, no, no, Massachusetts, we get what you’re trying to do, but you can’t overrule the FDA. Basically, if the FDA says this is safe and effective and it’s going to be available, then you have to abide by that. So we will see if that’s going to happen with the abortion pill.

Varney: Can I just add something? 

Rovner: Yes.

Varney: That I was just reading about abortion pill bans in different states, including South Dakota. And the targeted advertisement I got from Google was for a company called hims, which is for Viagra. So I’m reading here about how abortion pills are not allowed, abortion is illegal, and I hope this is a family podcast, but this is an advertisement that anybody can see. It says: Get hard, stay hard, and last longer. So this is the advertisement you get when you go to the AP and you read a story about abortion.

Rovner: Great. So the other side is also having some creative ways to go after the abortion pill. I don’t think it’s them who’s planting the advertisements for men. But Alice, you uncovered this story about some groups charging that the pill can cause environmental damage in wastewater, right?

Ollstein: Yes. So, look, anti-abortion groups know people are still obtaining these pills in states where they’re not allowed to do so. And so they are looking to, you know, whatever they can look at in order to block that from happening. And they’re trying to get really creative. And so one of the several new things they’re trying is they’re trying to cite environmental laws in order to get state lawmakers to pass new restrictions, in order to get state AGs to move in and do more enforcement actions to stop the use of these pills. So they are alleging that because people take the pills at home and have an abortion at home, that goes into the wastewater, that that is a risk to wildlife, livestock, humans. There is not evidence for this right now. I talked to people who study the effect of other pharmaceuticals in wastewater, and they say that this is just infinitesimal, but this is something they’re trying. Again, it’s not the only thing they’re trying. But, you know, it could have some legs. They’ve already convinced one state to introduce legislation specifically along these lines — West Virginia — saying that any doctor that prescribes the pill also has to give the patient a medical waste bag in order to bag the abortion and not have it go into the wastewater. They are trying to do this in other states. You know, the goal is, again, to stop the use of the pills altogether.

Varney: And when I was at the summit on Saturday, they had an hour-and-a-half-long session on this. And it was in this ballroom, and it was just packed with high school and college students primarily. And they plan on doing a taste-the-water challenge at different campuses; they’re starting in Texas. And they said very specifically, we are not going to have any signs that say anything about how we’re pro-life or opposed to abortion. We’re not going to have anything that says “fetus.” We’re just going to have glasses of water up on the table at these campuses and we’re going to invite students to step up and taste the water. And then we’re going to tell them that there is likely traces of the abortion pill in this water. And so they’re going to use high school students and college students to sort of run these taste-the-water challenges, to bring in this new idea and spread it around.

Rovner: Super. Can’t wait. All right. Well, moving on. One of the interesting outcomes of this decision is that it’s also affecting people who aren’t pregnant, don’t have anything to do with being pregnant. There have been a bunch of stories about women of childbearing age being unable to get medications for lupus and other conditions. How is that happening?

Ollstein: Well, again, you know, these things are not just used for one purpose. This actually came up pretty recently because some medical groups were petitioning the FDA to add more things to the abortion pill label so that they can be more legally protected in obtaining these medications for non-abortion purposes. Right now, the pill is only technically supposed to be prescribed for an abortion, but it’s used off-label for all of these other medical treatments. And so you have instances where pharmacists who are also newly empowered right now to deny prescriptions to people based on what they assume it’s being used for. And that’s leading to a lot of patients not being able to obtain prescriptions for other conditions.

Rovner: And for other drugs, right? I mean, drugs that can cause abortion, but aren’t the abortion pill. I’m thinking mostly of methotrexate, which is used for a lot of different conditions, but is also in some countries used as an abortion pill. And we’ve seen lots of cases where people are unable to get their methotrexate prescriptions refilled. People who have been using it for years. So that’s been complicated.

That’s it for Part I of our special, two-part podcast on the state of the abortion debate 50 years after Roe v. Wade. Don’t forget to download Part II, which will be right after this in your feed. It’s got the rest of our discussion, plus some very special extra credit. Thanks for listening.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio Producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KHN’s What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KHN

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

Julie Rovner is Chief Washington Correspondent and host of KHN’s weekly health policy news podcast, “What the Health?” A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book “Health Care Politics and Policy A-Z,” now in its third edition.

Having spent its entire first week choosing a speaker, the Republican-led U.S. House finally got down to legislative business, including passing two bills backed by anti-abortion groups. Neither is likely to become law, because they won’t pass the Senate nor be signed by President Joe Biden. But the move highlights how abortion is sure to remain a high-visibility issue in the nation’s capital.

Meanwhile, as open enrollment for the Affordable Care Act nears its Jan. 15 close, a record number of people have signed up, taking advantage of renewed subsidies and other help with medical costs.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Margot Sanger-Katz
The New York Times

@sangerkatz

https://www.nytimes.com/by/margot-sanger-katz

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The House now has a speaker after 15 rounds of full-chamber roll call votes. That paved the way for members to be sworn in, committee assignments to be made, and new committee chairs to be named. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Jason Smith (R-Mo.) will be taking the helm of major health committees.
• McMorris Rodgers will lead the House Energy and Commerce Committee; Smith will be the chairman of Ways and Means. Unlike McMorris Rodgers, Smith has little background in health issues and has mostly focused on tax issues in his public talking points. But Medicare is likely to be on the agenda, which will require the input of the chairs of both committees.
• One thing is certain: The new GOP-controlled House will do a lot of investigations. Republicans have already reconstituted a committee to investigate covid-19, although, unlike the Democrats’ panel, this one is likely to spend time trying to find the origin of the virus and track where federal dollars may have been misspent.
• The House this week began considering a series of abortion-related bills — “statement” or “messaging” bills — that are unlikely to see the light of day in the Senate. However, some in the caucus question the wisdom of holding votes on issues like these that could make their more moderate members more vulnerable. So far, bills have had mostly unanimous support from the GOP. Divisions are more likely to emerge on topics like a national abortion ban. Meanwhile, the Title X program, which pays for things like contraception and testing for sexually transmitted infections, is becoming a hot topic at the state level and in some lawsuits. A case in Texas would restrict contraception availability for minors through this program.
• It’s increasingly clear that abortion pills are going to become an even bigger part of the abortion debate. On one hand, the FDA has relaxed some of the risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) from the prescribing rules surrounding abortion pills. The FDA puts these extra restrictions or safeguards in place for certain drugs to add additional protection. Some advocates say these pills simply do not bring that level or risk.
• Anti-abortion groups are planning protests in early February at large pharmacies such as CVS and Walgreens to try to get them to walk back plans to distribute abortion pills in states where they are legal.
• A growing number of states are pressuring the Department of Health and Human Services to allow them to import cheaper prescription drugs from Canada — or, more accurately, importing Canada’s price controls. While this has long been a bipartisan issue, it has also long been controversial. Officials at the FDA remain concerned about breaking the closed supply chain between drugs being manufactured and delivered to approved U.S. buyers. The policy is popular, however, because it promises lower prices on at least some drugs.
• Also in the news from the FDA: The agency granted accelerated approval for Leqembi for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Leqembi is another expensive drug that appears to work, but also carries big risks. However, it is generally viewed as an improvement over the even more controversial Alzheimer’s drug Aduhelm. Still to be determined is whether Medicare — which provides insurance to most people with Alzheimer’s — will cover the drug.
• As the Affordable Care Act enrolls a record number of Americans, it is notable that repealing the law has not been mentioned as a priority for the new GOP majority in the House. Rather, the top health issue is likely to be how to reduce the price of Medicare and other health “entitlement” programs.

Plus, for extra credit, the panelists recommend their favorite health policy stories of the week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “Social Security Denies Disability Benefits Based on List With Jobs From 1977,” by Lisa Rein

Margot Sanger-Katz: Roll Call’s “Providers Say Medicare Advantage Hinders New Methadone Benefit,” by Jessie Hellmann

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times’ “Grant Wahl Was a Loving Husband. I Will Always Protect His Legacy.” By Céline Gounder

Sarah Karlin-Smith: KHN’s “Hospitals’ Use of Volunteer Staff Runs Risk of Skirting Labor Laws, Experts Say,” by Lauren Sausser

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• KHN’s “States Challenge Biden to Lower Drug Prices by Allowing Imports From Canada,” by Phil Galewitz
• Politico’s “Next Frontier in the Abortion Wars: Your Local CVS,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein and Lauren Gardner
• KFF’s “Millions of Uninsured People Can Get Free ACA Plans,” by Jared Ortaliza, Justin Lo, Gary Claxton, Krutika Amin, and Cynthia Cox

TRANSCRIPT

Click here for a transcript of the episode.

KHN’s ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: GOP House Opens With Abortion AgendaEpisode Number: 279Published: Dec. 12, 2023

Tamar Haspel: A lot of us want to eat better for the planet, but we’re not always sure how to do it. I’m Tamar Haspel.

Michael Grunwald: And I’m Michael Grunwald. And this is “Climavores,” a show about eating on a changing planet.

Haspel: We’re here to answer all kinds of questions. Questions like: Is fake meat really a good alternative to beef? Does local food actually matter?

Grunwald: You can follow us or subscribe on Stitcher, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to KHN’s “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at Kaiser Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Jan. 12, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.

Rovner: Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Margot Sanger-Katz: Hello.

Rovner: And Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: So no interview this week, but lots of news, so we will get right to it. We’re going to start with the new Congress, where the House finally has a speaker after 15 rounds of full-chamber roll calls. Settling the speaker meant that the rest of the House could be sworn in and things like committee chairs elected. Two key health committees, Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means, will both have new chairs, not just new because they’re Republican, but new because they have not chaired the committee previously. Energy and Commerce will be headed by a woman for the first time, Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state, who’s had a longtime interest in health policy and was also in the Republican leadership. Over at Ways and Means, the new chairman is Jason Smith of Missouri, who I confess I had never heard of before this. Does anyone know anything about him? And does he have any interest in health care?

Ollstein: Most of what he said about chairing the committee has been about things other than health care. It’s been a lot on taxes, for instance. The new House majority is very “exorcised” about the IRS funding that the previous Congress approved and trying to get rid of that. But he has shown some interest in some telehealth provisions. And so I think also I’m sure we’re going to discuss some interest in, shall we say, revisiting Medicare’s benefits and funding …

Rovner: Yeah, we’re going to get to that next.

Ollstein: So there could be some things, but it doesn’t seem that he’s been a big health care guy or will be a big health care guy going forward.

Rovner: In the olden days, when I started covering this, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee frequently did not have either an interest or an expertise in health care. But the chairman of the Ways and Means health subcommittee did. That’s where pretty much everything came from. Do we know yet who is going to chair the Ways and Means health subcommittee …? We do not. So we’ll wait to see that. But yes …. even though I read Chairman Smith’s little introduction about what he’s interested in — and I know he mentioned rural health — but he did not anywhere mention Medicare. And of course, the Ways and Means Committee has jurisdiction over most of Medicare in the House. It is going to come up, as far as we can tell, right?

Sanger-Katz: One imagines so because some of the promises that leadership has made to its members to think about how to balance the budget in the long term, to consider entitlement reform, whatever that may mean. And, you know, Medicare is where the money is. So you would think that the Ways and Means Committee would want to be looking seriously at how to reform the program, if that’s the interest of leadership on this policy area.

Rovner: And they’ve already said that they want to tie any debt ceiling vote, which [is] one of those things that Congress absolutely has to do to reforms, quote-unquote, of the Medicare and Social Security programs. Because, again, as Margot said, that’s where the money goes. So we expect to see Medicare as an issue, regardless of what the Ways and Means Committee does, right?

Ollstein: That’s right. There were a lot of calls for Democrats to address the debt ceiling issue during their final months in power. They did not do so. That means that it’s going to be a big, messy fight this year. One of the biggest things to watch. This is an instance where the Republican House majority will be able to flex its muscles even though they don’t have the Senate and White House, because they can trigger a budget standoff that puts the faith and credit of the country in jeopardy and demand concessions, including cuts to Medicare. So we’ll see how that goes.

Rovner: Although I will say, Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii was on Twitter, and he didn’t ask me anything much to the horror of his communications staff. But one of the questions that somebody asked him was, “Why didn’t you do the debt ceiling?” And he just said: We didn’t have the votes. So that at least answers the question of why didn’t they take care of this before the Republicans took the majority back? Well, one thing we do know is going to happen is that the new Republican-controlled House is going to do a lot of investigations. Indeed, one of the first orders of business in the new Congress was the re-establishment of a committee on the covid pandemic with a new focus on investigating the origins of the virus and the government’s response to it. What are we expecting out of that?

Karlin-Smith: As you said, Julie, I think two of the things is, one, they’re going to do more investigation into the origin of the virus. Republicans have pushed the potential theory that this was borne out of a lab in China, not necessarily something more naturally occurring. And I think a lot of scientists have said this theory has been fairly close to disproven and find that the focus on it distracts from really dealing with the current pandemic. But I think we should expect a lot of that. And that will include, I think, a lot of relitigation of Anthony Fauci and his particular role in the NIH [National Institutes of Health] and funding different types of research on viruses, both in the U.S. and abroad. The second thing I think they’re going to look very closely at is how the U.S. has spent the covid funding that Congress has doled out and appropriated. That’s certainly a lot of money. And I think, again, oversight is always probably … it’s a good thing to see if Congress gives money, are we spending it? … Does it actually get to where it needs to go? Does it go to where it’s supposed to go? I think that … in general, I think most people think that’s a good thing. Sometimes what ends up happening is it gets taken a little bit to …  this disingenuous step forward in Washington, where everything gets questioned or they pick on jurisdictions for not spending the money fast enough when it’s just not realistic. So you have to read between the lines really carefully when you’re looking at some of the findings from that type of work. Because sometimes, again, when you give a state $1,000,000 to do something, they’re not often able to make that change in two months.

Rovner: And then if they do, they get criticized for spending it on the wrong thing, so …

Karlin-Smith: Right.

Sanger-Katz: But I will say, speaking as a journalist, not as a congressional investigator, I do think that the covid funding is really ripe for a lot of investigation. There’s already been very good reporting that a lot of the small-business programs were broadly defrauded. I think there was a real emphasis by Congress and — in a bipartisan way, Republicans obviously voted for these bills as well. But I think there was a real emphasis on just getting money out the door. People were so scared of a catastrophic economic collapse that, unlike a lot of programs that Congress designs that fund various things, there weren’t a lot of initial safeguards, there wasn’t a lot of process or administrative burden associated with getting money. And so that means it really is valuable to look and see where did it go, who may have defrauded the program, what are ways that in the next crisis it might be possible to do these kinds of programs in a way that is more efficient. You know, it occurs to me that in addition to the small-business money, hospitals got a whole lot of money as part of these programs. And again, there’s been some journalism about this, but I do think I’m all for more oversight, trying to learn some real lessons. I agree with Sarah that there is probably some of this that’s going to veer into the disingenuous and kind of “gotcha.” But there may be some useful and interesting findings as a result of this process as well.

Rovner: And as we saw with the Jan. 6 committee, Congress has powers that journalists don’t. As we know, the Justice Department has powers that Congress doesn’t. But Congress has pretty good investigatory powers. They can subpoena things when they need to. So, yes, I imagine we’re going to learn something about the fate of all of those dollars that went out the door.

Ollstein: Just to be fair, Republicans have sort of claimed that the Democrat-led effort to investigate covid didn’t have any financial accountability aspect. That’s not true. It did. They really scrutinized a lot of government contracts — like no-bid government contracts that funneled lots and lots of money to things that did not pan out or help anybody. There has been some of that already. But I agree that there’s definitely more to look at.

Rovner: And there … obviously, there was a Republican and a Democratic administration handling the covid pandemic. So one presumes there are things to investigate on both sides. Well, even while the House committees are gearing up, Republicans are bringing “statement” bills to the floor, bills that we know the Senate won’t take up and the president won’t sign. And despite the fact that abortion rights drove a lot of the midterm elections in the other direction, two of the first bills brought to the floor by the new Republican majority seek to do the bidding of anti-abortion groups. This, apparently, making Republican moderates, particularly those in swing districts, not so happy. Alice, are we looking at pretty much the same split in the Republicans in the House as in a lot of states — the people who think that the Republicans didn’t do well because they should have done more and people who think the Republicans didn’t do well because they should have done less?

Ollstein: Yeah, absolutely. And there’s a split on how to talk about it or whether to talk about it as well. It’s not just the actions, it’s the messaging in addition. And so, yes, there are some in the House who are, like, why are we doing this? Why are we taking these votes that have no chance of becoming law? It just puts our members from swing districts in a more vulnerable position. The things they voted on so far this week have pretty unanimous support on the Republican side, I would say. I think where you could start to see some bigger divides are when they get into votes on an actual national abortion restriction that would put a gestational limit on the procedure, or something like that, which absolutely some members want to do and want to take a vote on. I think that’s where you could start to see some Republicans being, like, wait, wait, wait, wait, why are we doing this? But the things so far are, like you said, they’re “messaging” bills, but they’re ones that have pretty broad support on the conservative side.

Rovner: And we should mention, I mean, one of them was just a sense of Congress that, you know, that bombing pregnancy crisis centers is bad. Or that violence against pregnancy centers …

Sanger-Katz: I’m not going to give credit for this correctly, but I saw a tweet on this topic last week when the list of demands and the list of these bills that we’re going to get a vote on was released where someone asked, Oh, did D-Triple-C [the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] co-author this list? Where I do think there is an interesting tension, as Alice said, where the particular message bills that the most conservative members of the House Republican caucus want to vote on are those issues where we see in public opinion polling, where we see in the last election that the majority of Americans are not really with those most conservative Republicans. And I think a lot of moderate Republicans would just prefer not to vote on those issues, particularly because they know that they can’t make them policy. And we were talking about changes to Medicare and Social Security, and I think that also falls very much in that category where there might be a situation in which if Republicans really thought that they could reform these programs, maybe they would want to take the political risk, because I do think it’s an important long-term goal of many Republicans. But I think there’s also a frustration, you know, why would we take all these votes on something that is generally unpopular? Everyone knows that both Social Security and Medicare are really, really popular programs and people are very wary of changes to them. There is a political risk in taking a bunch of votes saying that you want to pull money out of those programs or change them structurally when you can’t even achieve it.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, speaking of that, during Wednesday’s abortion debate on the House floor, Republican moderate Nancy Mace of South Carolina kept saying to any cable outlet that would put a microphone in front of her that Congress should be making birth control more widely available instead of voting on abortion. But we are also seeing the first shots fired in an effort to restrict birth control. Well, last month, a Trump-appointed judge ruled that the Title X family planning program is illegally providing contraception to minors. Now, this is a fight that dates back to even before I started covering it. It was called “the Squeal Rule” in the early 1980s, an effort by the Reagan administration to require parental involvement before teens could use Title X family planning services. It was eventually struck down in federal court, but now it’s back. Is this where we’re headed?

Ollstein: I think it’s really important to watch things in law and policy that are just directed at minors because inevitably it does not stop there. Like, that’s sort of the testing ground. It’s where people are more comfortable with more restrictions and more hoops to jump through. But as we’ve seen with gender-affirming care, it doesn’t stop there. What’s tested out as a policy for minors is inevitably proposed for adults as well, and so …

Sanger-Katz: What’s the adult version of this, Alice? Like who? Like spousal consent?

Rovner: Yes, there had been — I was just going to say — not so much in contraception, although originally it was, but also on abortion that, yeah, if there’s a partner that the partner would have to consent.

Ollstein: But there’s also been spousal consent stuff for more permanent … getting your tubes tied, those kinds of things. That’s been a debate as well. And, I mean, in the abortion space we’ve seen this for, in terms of like traveling across state lines for an abortion. That’s been a restriction for minors that’s also been proposed for adults. So it’s just this phase we should absolutely watch — as well as Title X program continues to be a space for proposed restrictions. It’s a lever that they’re able to hold because it does have federal funding and it does have constraints that other pots of money don’t have.

Rovner: My favorite piece of trivia is that the Title X program has not been reauthorized since 1984 because Congress has never been able to find the votes. You know, when the Democrats were in charge and wanted to do it, the Republicans would have all of these amendments that the Democrats probably couldn’t fight off. The Republicans wanted to do it and put all these stringent rules that the Democrats wouldn’t have. So, literally, this program has been … it gets funded every year, but it’s been marching along for now several decades without Congress having formally reauthorized it.

Ollstein: Yeah, that’s why you keep seeing different presidential administrations trying to put their stamp on it through rulemaking, which, of course, can be rolled back by the subsequent president, as we’ve seen with [Donald] Trump and [Joe] Biden. And so it just keeps going back and forth. And these clinics that are out there getting this funding, which, again, can’t be used for abortion, for contraception, STD testing, fertility stuff, all kinds of stuff, but not abortion. But they keep having to comply with these wildly different rules. It’s really difficult.

Rovner: Yeah, it is. All right. Well, last week we talked about the Biden administration’s effort to make abortion pills more available through both pharmacies and the mail. On the one hand, some abortion rights advocates say that the FDA is still overregulating the abortion pill by requiring extra hoops for both pharmacies and doctors to jump through in order to offer or write prescriptions for a medication that’s proved safe and effective over two decades. On the other hand, we now have the specter of abortion opponents protesting at CVSes or Walgreens near you. And Alice, they’re already planning to do that, right?

Ollstein: Yeah, that’s right. They would have done it sooner, but they didn’t want to step on the March for Life, which is coming up in a couple of weeks. And so they’re planning these protests at CVS and Walgreens around the country for early February, trying to pressure the company to walk back its announcement that they will participate in the distribution of abortion pills in states where they remain legal, which is, by our count, currently 18 can’t do this either because abortion is banned entirely or because there are laws specifically restricting how people get the pills.

Rovner: Sarah, I want you to talk about some of these extra hoops that have to be jumped through because a lot of people think it’s just for this pill and it’s not. This is something that the FDA has for any drug that’s potentially abusable, right?

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I wouldn’t say abusable is the right word, but basically people call this a REMS. It stands for risk evaluation and mitigation strategy. And it’s actually an authority Congress gave the FDA to — we use this term “safe and effective,” but we know all drugs, even when we say that “safe” term, will come with risks. And the idea here is that when the benefit-risk balance would be … so that it would be … FDA might say, OK, this is actually too risky to approve. However, we think we could make it kind of safe enough if we put in a little extra safeguards instead of just letting it go out there. Here’s a drug, doctors, you can prescribe it, follow the normal pathway, which is that the federal government, or at least the FDA, doesn’t really have a lot of say in exactly how the practice of medicine works. That’s left up to states. And, you know, doctors individually. They implement other practices to help ensure that safety balance is there. So one famous example is Accutane, which is an acne drug. It’s incredibly harmful to a developing fetus and birth defects. So women of pregnancy, bearing age are usually required to take regular pregnancy tests and so forth and monitor the status of that. And you’re not supposed to use the drug while pregnant because of the incredible harm you do to a baby. So there’s everything from things like that to just simply more written literature might be provided for certain drugs. Sometimes in the cases of the abortion pill, you know, who could actually dispense it and when was restricted. Sometimes there are particular sorts of trainings doctors have to take to get that extra authority to prescribe the drug. And again, the idea is that just to provide a little extra safeguard. Again, the controversy over the years with this pill is that people feel like it doesn’t meet that standard to have a REMS, that it can be safe and effective through our normal prescribing systems. Actually, Stat this week had an interesting interview with Jane Henney, who was the FDA commissioner when they first approved this drug. And she …

Rovner: Yeah, in the year 2000.

Karlin-Smith: Right. Which is actually …

Rovner: Right at the end of the Clinton administration.

Karlin-Smith: Actually predates this formal REMS authority. But there were others, different authorities that then evolved into REMS. But she said she thought that a lot of these restrictions would be gone by now and that what, at the time, what they were waiting for was more U.S.-specific experience with the drug, because what they were basing the original approval on was a lot of use of the drug in France, which had such a different health system than the U.S., they were a little bit uncomfortable, I guess, opening the floodgates in a way. So I thought that was an interesting historical point that came out this week.

Rovner: But clearly, Alice, I mean, this is going to be the next big fight in abortion, right, is trying to restrict the abortion pill?

Ollstein: Absolutely. I’ve been writing about this since before Roe v. Wade was overturned. The pills were already becoming one of the most popular and now are the most popular way to terminate a pregnancy in the U.S., which makes sense. You can take them in the comfort of your home with the people that you want to be with you, not in a scary medical environment. It’s also a lot cheaper than having a surgical procedure. So but then, of course, with the pandemic, people started using them even more because it was more dangerous to go to a clinical setting. And so this has been a big focus of both sides of this fight for a long time: either how to increase access to the pills or restrict them. Also, now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned, the pills and the ability to order them online from overseas in this legal gray area, that’s been a major way people have been getting around state bans, and the anti-abortion groups know that. And so they want to look at any way they can to crack down on this. And so with the Biden administration opening up a new potential pathway with these local retail pharmacies, they’re of course going to try to crack down on that as well.

Karlin-Smith: I mean, we talked about this before in the podcast, but I think this issue of federal preemption, if it gets teed up, is going to be a big thing that’s beyond just abortion, in terms of when does FDA’s approval of a drug trump state regulations around how it’s going to be used? And, you know, I feel like some people have not been satisfied on the … who want more access to abortion drugs in terms of how FDA has handled the rollback of the REMS. But you also have to wonder if they’re operating in this setting where, again, if you push things too far and you get a legal challenge, given how our courts are, right? And how politically it can backfire. And so it’s a complicated balance there.

Rovner: Well, speaking of drugs that are in gray areas that people order online, my KHN colleague Phil Galewitz reports that four states — Florida, Colorado, New Hampshire, and New Mexico — are now pressuring the Biden administration to allow them to import prescription drugs from Canada in an effort to reduce the cost of drugs for their residents. Now, despite the fact that this has been and remains a very bipartisan ask, the FDA, under both Republican and Democratic commissioners, has strongly objected to it over the years. Somebody remind us why this is so controversial.

Karlin-Smith: I think the big thing FDA has objected to is that when you allow importation in the way states have often asked for it, you basically often give up the supply chain oversight that we have in the U.S. that ensures people are not getting drugs that are counterfeit and have somehow been tampered with as they’ve gotten through the supply chain. And so, actually, I was refreshing my memory, and I can’t believe how long ago it is. When the Trump administration first became the first administration to say, Oh, actually, OK, we are going to agree that we think this could be come safely. Then they put out regulations that tried to … basically like made it so that to do importation, you would almost have to mimic the same supply-chain safety measures we already have for the FDA. So it became this double-edged sword of, sure, you can do the importation, but you’re going to have to jump to this level of hurdles that then makes it unusable. And so I think that’s the key barrier here, is that can a state actually propose a program that would get sign-off? And I think it’s not really surprising to me that the Trump team tried to thread the needle in that way of giving people the win of saying, Oh, we’ll allow it without actually making it feasible.

Sanger-Katz: I think it also highlights what a weird ask this is in some ways because what the states are looking to do is they are not looking to import drugs from other countries because they think that other countries have better manufacturing, have better safety protocols, have different drugs. They just want to import the lower prices that other countries pay for the same drugs. And so this is, in some ways, a very cludgy workaround that the states are basically asking for price regulation of drugs. But that obviously is a very difficult political act. So instead they’re saying, well, can we just import the prices that some other country has negotiated. And then it raises all these other issues about, Well, you know, there is like a reason why, in general, the United States has regulatory control over the drug supply.

Rovner: Also, Canada doesn’t have enough drugs to serve all of these states. I mean, that’s the thing that I’ve never managed to get over. And, in fact, Canada has said that they’re not anxious to do this because they don’t have enough drugs to serve both Canada and the United States. I mean, it also seems just literally impractical.

Sanger-Katz: I mean, we are seeing, of course, like in the Inflation Reduction Act, there were new measures that would allow Medicare, in particular, to start negotiating for lower prices for certain drugs. Obviously, that policy has a fair number of limitations, including that it’s only for Medicare, it’s only for certain drugs, and it’s not going to be instant. But while we did get some new timeline from the Biden administration this week, and it looks like that policy is going to start rolling out. So I think states are asking for this now because they want to import prices from other countries. But also, for the first time, Medicare, or the federal government is starting to take on drug prices directly. And we’re going to see how that looks relatively soon.

Rovner: Yes, this ship turns very slowly, but it does seem to be turning a little bit. Well, as we previewed last week, the FDA has approved another controversial Alzheimer’s disease drug, Leqembi. I think that’s how you say it, which has a Q without a U. Sarah, you’ve been following this. Are we headed down potentially the same road we traveled with Aduhelm? It feels kind of familiar. It’s a drug that we think works, but we don’t really know, and it has some big risks and will be expensive.

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I mean, similar, but slightly different. And perhaps the analogy that things slowly make their way in a different direction is also right here. This drug, I think most people see it as an improvement on Aduhelm because it has, in one major clinical trial, shown some benefit on people’s cognitive decline slowing a bit. However, the big debate there is that … how meaningful the change that was seen in the trial is. Is it really going to be meaningful in people’s lives and is that worth the price? The company is … actually a similar company is involved here, but they priced it quite a bit lower than the original Aduhelm price, even lower than the price of Aduhelm now. It’s still seen as on the very high end of what a lot of cost-effective watchdogs say is a fair price. And as of right now, CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] or Medicare is not going to be covering it at all because right now the drug only has what’s known as an accelerated approval. So we’re going to, over the next probably less than a year, in about nine months or so, FDA will have to weigh in on whether it gives the drug a full formal approval. And at that point, we’ll see if Medicare also gives the sign-off that they think this drug might actually be effective for people and are willing to pay for it. I think my bottom line on this drug is, you know, it provides some hope and some improvement for people, but it looks like to be a small clinical benefit for a big trade-off in risks. So I think as more data comes out over time, we’ll see again if that benefit-risk trade-off for most people falls on the right side of the coin.

Rovner: And we’ll watch this whole process go forward again. All right. Finally this week, but not least, there’s also news on the health insurance coverage front. With the end of open enrollment for the Affordable Care Act coverage rapidly approaching in most states, by Jan. 15, officials at the Department of Health and Human Services this week reported that enrollment is already up 13% from last year to almost 16 million people, including about 3.1 million people who are new enrollees. In the meantime, though, my colleagues over the firewall at KFF report that some 5 million more uninsured Americans are actually eligible for free health care coverage under the ACA. It feels ironic because this is not the first year of expanded subsidies and there’s been relatively little media coverage of open enrollment. Is it just that it takes time for knowledge of these offers to trickle down to people? Or that the Biden administration put a lot more effort into outreach this year?

Sanger-Katz: I think it’s all of the above. I think for the first few years of the Obamacare program, there were a lot of complaints that this insurance really wasn’t affordable enough for people. And, obviously, that’s why Congress, first in part of the pandemic stimulus bill and now again in the Inflation Reduction Act, really jacked up the subsidies and made the plans cheaper and, in many cases, have more wraparound benefits so that low-income people could get insurance that was either free or relatively low-premium and also didn’t ask them to pay a lot out-of-pocket for their own care. And we can see also that the Biden administration did a lot of outreach. I mean, it’s definitely the case that they both, through Congress, made the plans cheaper and also, through various administrative actions, made the plans more widely publicized. And I just want to highlight, I think last year was the record year for Obamacare enrollment. And now we’re seeing this huge increase on top of a record year. So these things seem to matter. I think the affordability of plans, the availability of free plans for a lot of uninsured Americans is very appealing. And yet the people who are uninsured and poor, I think, are difficult to reach. There is a lot of long-standing opposition to Obamacare. There are a lot of places where there are a lot of uninsured Americans, where there’s not particularly effective and robust outreach. People don’t know how to find these things, how to sign up. And it is really administratively complex to sign up for these plans. I mean, I don’t know how many of our listeners have tried to do it. It’s not impossible. It is on the internet. You know, anyone can do it. And you don’t have to have someone holding your hand. But I think in many cases you probably do want someone holding your hand if it’s your first time doing it. There are, in many markets, lots of choices. It’s confusing. It’s hard to know what the best option is, sometimes it’s a little bit hard to figure out what it’s going to cost you until you enter in a lot of information about your income. And you might also be scared that if you’re not sure or you put something in wrong, you could get in trouble. So I think this is just an ongoing challenge of getting all these people who are now eligible for these really low-cost plans to actually interact with the system and get insurance.

Rovner: One thing I guess bears mentioning is that with the Republicans just, you know, plan to do all of these things like try to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act because they don’t like the drug price provisions … [but] they are not talking about repealing the Affordable Care Act anymore, right? Have we finally come to the end of that particular fight?

Sanger-Katz: It sure looks that way.

Ollstein: Yeah. The right the writing has been on the wall in terms of the lack of that talk on the campaign trail for a few years now. I was joking with some colleagues that, you know, the “repeal Obamacare” is tired; the “repeal the drug price negotiation provisions” is wired. That’s the new talking point, although that’s not going to happen either, obviously, because of the control of the Senate and because of how insanely expensive it would be to repeal that. But the Republicans definitely have moved on to other targets.

Sanger-Katz: Although I will say, you know, once again, the fact that House leadership has committed to proposing cuts to health entitlement programs, the fact that they have committed to proposing a budget that balances in 10 years means that, I think, it will be extremely difficult for them to avoid talking about particular cuts or changes to Affordable Care Act programs. You know, again, it’s just like this is where the dollars are. They can take a lot of dollars out of Medicare, that is very politically unpopular. They can take some dollars out of Medicaid, you know, the largest expansion of which is part of ACA. They can take money out of these subsidies, which, you know, have been supercharged in recent years beyond even what Congress initially passed in 2010. And I do think, as Alice said, you know, this is not a popular talking point. I don’t think Republicans, by and large, want to be talking about repealing Obamacare anymore. And yet I think they are backed into this corner where they’re going to have to make and propose specific modifications and cuts to these programs in order to achieve these high-level philosophical goals that they’ve signed up for. And so I think it will be interesting to see what does it look like, maybe they’re not going to call it Obamacare repeal anymore, but they might still be sucking $1,000,000,000,000 out of Medicaid, like some of the Trump administration budgets did.

Rovner: Yeah. And it’s important to mention, again, I mean, the Republicans talk about all these things they’re going to do and people are thinking, Oh, my God, if they vote for this balanced budget, in 10 years it’s going to happen. They can’t do most of these things without the Senate and/or the president unless they have two-thirds to override, which they don’t. The one place that we do think they could exercise some leverage, obviously, is this debt ceiling vote where the Congress has to vote to raise the debt ceiling or the U.S. will default on things that it has already bought but not paid for — basically paying the credit card bill. And that, certainly, they’re going to try to make some entitlement changes. But all of these other things that they say they’re, quote-unquote, “going to do,” they’re mostly just quote-unquote, “making political statements,” right?

Sanger-Katz: But they’re going to have to talk about them. They’re going to have to write things down. They’re going to have to have specific dollars attached to this. I do think that it will be politically salient and that it will create some visibility into, like, well, how do you balance the budget in 10 years? What does entitlement reform look like? And they’re not saying Obamacare repeal anymore and they don’t want to, they understand that they don’t want to. And yet I think they’re going to be in this position where they’re going to effectively have to lay out something that looks like Obamacare repeal, something that looks like Social Security reform, something that looks like big changes to Medicare. And we will have a political debate about that because Democrats are just salivating to have those conversations. I think they feel like that is very strong political ground on them. They think that voters trust them to protect those very popular programs if they’re under assault. And, you know, which is very similar to the political dynamic we saw when Republicans were really trying in earnest, when they had full control of government and wanted to repeal Obamacare.

Rovner: Yes. And I would say, as we absolutely saw in 2017, when they failed to repeal it, Republicans very much agree on their goals, but they very much disagree on how to get there. There is no unified Republican plan for either reforming, you know, the Affordable Care Act or Medicare or Medicaid, I mean, except for basically cutting money out of it. So I will be interested, as Margot says, to see what they actually put down on paper.

Sanger-Katz: And, sorry, just one more thing on this point, which is, again, I think that the kinds of show votes that the Republican House leadership is going to have to put on these issues are probably not going to be particularly politically productive and may be politically damaging to them. But I do think, setting that aside for the moment, I do think we are entering in an environment of much higher interest rates, of really more accelerating federal debt. You know, there are a lot of conditions right now that are potentially ripe for thinking about government spending and particularly thinking about these big categories of government spending that are our federal health care programs. I think the last few years there’s been this sense that, you know, debt is free and the deficit doesn’t matter. And I think inflation is high, interest rates are rising. I do think that we’re in a moment where there may be a greater sense of a need to confront this problem. And I’m interested in what that conversation looks like, which may be a little bit different than the kind of highly ideological conversation that we’re going to see in the very near term.

Rovner: I was going to say that that would require actually having substantive talks about what might work, which we don’t know is going to happen, but we can cross our fingers and hope. All right. That is the news for this week. Now it is time for our extra-credit segment where we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it; we will post the links on the podcast page at khn.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Sarah, why don’t you go first this week?

Karlin-Smith: Sure. I took a look at a story by Kaiser Health News’ Lauren Sausser: “Hospitals’ Use of Volunteer Staff Runs Risk of Skirting Labor Laws, Experts Say.” I thought this was a fascinating story about hospitals’ reliance on volunteers, not for the types of activities I usually associate hospital volunteers with, which would be …

Rovner: Like candy stripers.

Karlin-Smith: Right. Like light … I don’t know, “light” is not the right word, but, you know, visiting people, comforting them in some way, providing added benefit of sorts. And this is really people that are being asked to do medical care and the basics, some of the basic care you need when you are in a hospital. And I think her story cites about $5 billion maybe in the U.S. of free labor through these types of volunteers. And the question becomes, you know, is this violating labor laws? And should these people be getting paid for the work, or should they … are they basically, because they’re using volunteers, taking money and job opportunities away from other people? And I thought it was a fascinating story just because I had no idea of all of this, you know, volunteer labor was being used and the impacts on these hospitals during the pandemic, when they couldn’t have volunteers. And just, I think, important to think about, too, how this impacts the quality of care as well people receive.

Rovner: Hospitals are very clever. Margot.

Sanger-Katz: I wanted to recommend an article from Jessie Hellman at Roll Call called “Providers Say Medicare Advantage Hinders New Methadone Benefit.” And I’ve been doing a lot of reporting on the Medicare Advantage program lately. And so I was a little bit jealous of this story. Congress just recently required Medicare to pay for methadone. You know, a very evidence-based treatment for opioid addiction that it hadn’t been covering before. And what this article found is that these Medicare Advantage plans, or private competitors to the government Medicare program, have been enacting a lot of roadblocks that make it hard for people to get this treatment. So they technically cover it, but they require often what’s called prior authorization, where you have to … doctors and others have to jump through a lot of hoops to prove that the person really needs it. And when I saw this article, I put out a bat signal on my Twitter and I said, Can anyone think of the medical reason why you would want to have … restrict access to methadone treatment? And, you know, this is just a Twitter poll, but no one could come up with the reason. They could think of lots of reasons why the insurance company might not want to cover it, because it’s expensive, because patients who have opioid addiction probably are pretty expensive in general. And so, you know, this could be a way to avoid paying for a complex treatment or a way to discourage patients who have complex health care needs from choosing a Medicare Advantage plan. Anyway, so just a good story and just, you know, another illustration of, you know, even after Congress does something like add a new benefit, there’s always value in doing oversight to see how is that actually working in the real world and is it giving patients the care that was intended?

Rovner: Yes. And we will be talking, I think, much more about Medicare Advantage this year. Alice.

Ollstein: So I have a very sad piece to recommend. It is an op-ed by Céline Gounder, who is a public health expert that we all know well, as well as the widow of Grant Wahl, the soccer journalist who died covering the World Cup. And she wrote about how her husband’s death has been co-opted by anti-vax conspiracy theorists who are trying to draw some connection to what happened to him and being vaccinated for covid. But she really smartly walks through the misinformation playbook because it is a very sort of predictable playbook with very predictable points and, you know, dismantles them one by one. And I think it’s really helpful for the inevitable next time we see this come up to be prepared in advance and be able to refute those points. Very tragic but very helpful thing to know.

Rovner: Yeah. Céline is our colleague now at KHN, in addition to everything else that she does, and I can just say to these trolls: Don’t mess with Céline. It really was a very good piece. Well, my extra credit this week is from The Washington Post, and it’s a great story that ran in the dead week between Christmas and New Year’s. So I … gave it an extra week. It’s called “Social Security Denies Disability Benefits Based on List With Jobs From 1977,” by Lisa Rein. And while I’ve known for a long time that the Social Security disability program has a multiyear backlog, one thing I didn’t know until I read this story is that a lot of otherwise likely eligible people get their benefits denied because they could theoretically do jobs that largely no longer exist. Among the jobs the government says people who are disabled might be able to do are nuts sorter, dowel inspector, or egg processor. That’s because the last time the labor market data used to determine if a disabled person might be able to do a job was last updated 45 years ago. The agency has been working since 2012 to update its listing of jobs that could be done by sedentary individuals. But somehow the new directory of jobs has not made it into use yet. Meanwhile, thousands of people deserving of disability benefits are being steered to jobs that are now largely automated, offshored, or otherwise obsolete, something that clearly needs to be fixed.

OK, that is our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you could subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you’ve left us a review — that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our ever-patient producer, Francis Ying. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth — all one word — @kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m still at Twitter for now: @jrovner. Sarah?

Karlin-Smith: I’m @SarahKarlin

Rovner: Margot?

Sanger-Katz: @sangerkatz

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. In the meantime, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio Producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KHN’s What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Sin embargo, tras unas horas en el hospital, un médico dio de alta a Thompson para que volviera a la cárcel. Así pasó de ser un paciente de salud mental a un recluso de la prisión del condado de Dauphin. A partir de ese momento, se esperaba que cumpliera las órdenes, o que se le obligara a hacerlo.

A las pocas horas de regresar a la cárcel, Thompson se enzarzó en una pelea con los guardias. Su historia es uno de los más de 5,000 incidentes de “uso de fuerza” que se registraron en 2021 en las cárceles de los condados de Pennsylvania.

El caso de Thompson figura en una investigación, efectuada por WITF, que revisó 456 incidentes de “uso de fuerza” en 25 cárceles de condados en Pennsylvania, durante el último trimestre de 2021. Entre los casos revisados, casi 1 de cada 3 involucraba a una persona que sufría una crisis psiquiátrica o que padecía una enfermedad mental.

En muchos casos, los guardias utilizaron armas, como pistolas paralizantes y aerosoles de pimienta, para controlar y doblegar a presos con condiciones psiquiátricas graves que podrían haberles impedido seguir órdenes, o entender lo que estaba sucediendo.

Los registros muestran que cuando Thompson intentó huir del personal de la cárcel durante un intento de palparlo en busca de armas, un agente le roció con gas pimienta en la cara y luego intentó tirarlo al suelo.

Según la documentación, Thompson se defendió por lo que llegaron otros agentes para esposarlo y ponerle grilletes. Un oficial cubrió la cabeza de Thompson con una capucha y lo sentó en una silla, atándolo de brazos y piernas, y unos 20 minutos después, otro policía notó que Thompson no respiraba bien. Lo llevaron de urgencia al hospital.

Días después, Thompson murió. El fiscal del distrito no presentó cargos. El fiscal del distrito, el alcaide de la prisión y los funcionarios del condado que supervisan la cárcel no respondieron a las solicitudes de entrevistas sobre el tratamiento de Thompson, o se negaron a hacer comentarios.

La mayoría de los casos de uso de fuerza en las cárceles no conducen a la muerte. En el caso de Thompson, la causa de la muerte fue “complicaciones derivadas de una arritmia cardíaca”, pero la forma en que se produjo fue “indeterminada”, según el forense del condado.

En otras palabras, no pudo determinar si la muerte de Thompson se debió a que le rociaron gas pimienta y lo sujetaron, pero tampoco dijo que Thompson muriera por causas naturales.

El vocero del condado de Dauphin, Brett Hambright, también declinó hacer comentarios sobre el caso de Thompson, pero señaló que casi la mitad de las personas en la cárcel padecen una enfermedad mental, “junto con un número significativo de individuos encarcelados con tendencias violentas”.

“Siempre va a haber incidentes de uso de fuerza en la cárcel”, indicó Hambright. “Algunos de ellos involucrarán a reclusos con enfermedades mentales”.

Durante la investigación, expertos legales y en salud mental declararon que las prácticas empleadas en las cárceles del condado pueden poner a los presos y al personal en riesgo de sufrir lesiones, y pueden dañar a personas vulnerables listas para regresar a la sociedad en cuestión de meses.

“Algunos presos con enfermedades mentales quedan tan traumatizados por los malos tratos que nunca se recuperan; otros se suicidan, y a otros se les disuade de llamar la atención sobre sus problemas de salud mental porque denunciar estos problemas suele dar lugar a un trato más duro”, afirmó Craig Haney, profesor de psicología de la Universidad de California-Santa Cruz, especializado en las condiciones de los centros penitenciarios.

Los expertos afirman que el uso de la fuerza es una opción para prevenir la violencia entre los encarcelados, o la violencia contra los guardias.

Sin embargo, los informes de los funcionarios de las 25 cárceles de condados de Pennsylvania muestran que solo el 10% de los incidentes de “uso de fuerza” se produjeron en respuesta a la agresión de un preso a otra persona. Otro 10% informa de un preso amenazando a miembros del personal.

WITF descubrió que uno de cada cinco casos de uso de fuerza (88 incidentes) tuvo que ver con un preso que intentó suicidarse, autolesionarse o que amenazó con autolesionarse. Entre las respuestas más comunes del personal penitenciario figuró el uso de las mismas herramientas utilizadas con Thompson: una silla de inmovilización y gas pimienta. En algunos casos, los funcionarios utilizaron dispositivos de electroshock, como pistolas paralizantes.

Además, la investigación descubrió 42 incidentes en los que el personal penitenciario observó que un recluso mostraba problemas de salud mental, pero los guardias igual utilizaron la fuerza cuando no obedeció las órdenes.

Los defensores de estas técnicas afirman que salvan vidas al prevenir la violencia o las autolesiones; pero algunas cárceles de Estados Unidos han abandonado estas prácticas, y los administradores han afirmado que las técnicas son inhumanas y no funcionan.

El costo humano puede extenderse más allá de la cárcel, alcanzando a las familias de las personas encarceladas que mueren o quedan traumatizadas, así como a los funcionarios implicados, apuntó Liz Schultz, abogada de derechos civiles y defensa penal en la zona de Philadelphia.

“E incluso si el costo humano no fuera suficiente, los contribuyentes deberían preocuparse, ya que las demandas resultantes pueden ser costosas”, agregó Schultz. “Pone de relieve que debemos garantizar unas condiciones seguras en las cárceles, y que deberíamos ser un poco más juiciosos sobre a quién encerramos y por qué”.

“Solo necesitaba a una persona a mi lado”

La experiencia de Adam Caprioli comenzó cuando llamó al 911 durante un ataque de pánico.

Caprioli, de 30 años, vive en Long Pond, Pennsylvania, y ha sido diagnosticado con trastorno bipolar y trastorno de ansiedad. También lucha contra el alcoholismo y la drogadicción, según declaró.

Cuando la policía respondió a la llamada al 911, en otoño de 2021, llevaron a Caprioli al correccional del condado de Monroe.

Dentro de la cárcel, la ansiedad y la paranoia de Caprioli aumentaron. Dijo que el personal ignoró sus pedidos de hacer una llamada telefónica o hablar con un profesional de salud mental.

Tras varias horas de angustia extrema, Caprioli se ató la camisa al cuello y se asfixió hasta perder el conocimiento. Cuando el personal penitenciario lo vio, agentes entraron en su celda, con chalecos antibalas y cascos. El equipo de cuatro hombres tiró al suelo a Caprioli, que pesaba 150 libras. Uno de ellos llevaba una pistola de aire comprimido que dispara proyectiles con sustancias químicas irritantes.

“El recluso Caprioli movía los brazos y pateaba”, escribió un sargento en el informe del incidente. “Presioné el lanzador de Pepperball contra la parte baja de la espalda del recluso Caprioli y le impacté tres (3) veces”. El abogado Alan Mills explicó que los funcionarios suelen justificar el uso de la fuerza física diciendo que intervienen para salvar la vida de la persona.

“La inmensa mayoría de las personas que se autolesionan no van a morir”, señaló Mills, que ha litigado casos de uso de fuerza y es director ejecutivo del Uptown People’s Law Center de Chicago. “Más bien se trata de algún tipo de enfermedad mental grave. Y, por lo tanto, lo que realmente necesitan es una intervención para desescalar la crisis, mientras que el uso de la fuerza provoca exactamente lo contrario y agrava la situación”.

En Pennsylvania, Caprioli contó que cuando los agentes entraron en su celda sintió el dolor de las ronchas en su carne y el escozor del polvo químico en el aire, y se dio cuenta de que nadie le ayudaría.

“Eso es lo peor de todo”, dijo Caprioli. “Ven que estoy angustiado. Ven que no puedo hacerle daño a nadie. No tengo nada con lo que pueda hacerte daño”.

Finalmente, lo llevaron al hospital, donde, según Caprioli, evaluaron sus lesiones físicas, pero no recibió ayuda de un profesional de salud mental. Horas después, estaba de nuevo en la cárcel, donde permaneció cinco días. Al final se declaró culpable de un cargo de “embriaguez pública y mala conducta” y tuvo que pagar una multa.

Caprioli reconoció que sus problemas empeoran cuando consume alcohol o drogas, pero dijo que eso no justifica el trato que recibió en la cárcel.

“Esto no debería ocurrir. Solo necesitaba a una persona a mi lado que me dijera: ‘Hola, ¿cómo estás? ¿Qué te pasa?’ Y nunca me lo dijeron, ni siquiera el último día”, añadió.

El alcaide del correccional del condado de Monroe, Garry Haidle, y el fiscal del distrito, E. David Christine Jr., no respondieron a las solicitudes de comentarios.

Algunas cárceles prueban nuevas estrategias

La cárcel no es un entorno adecuado para el tratamiento de enfermedades mentales graves, afirmó la doctora Pamela Rollings-Mazza. Trabaja con PrimeCare Medical, que presta servicios médicos y conductuales en unas 35 cárceles de condados en Pennsylvania.

El problema, según Rollings-Mazza, es que las personas con problemas psiquiátricos graves no reciben la ayuda que necesitan antes de entrar en crisis. En ese momento, puede intervenir la policía, y quienes necesitaban atención de salud mental acaban en la cárcel.

“Así que los pacientes que vemos están muchas veces muy, muy, muy enfermos”, explicó Rollings-Mazza. “Por lo que nuestro personal debe atender esa necesidad”.

Los psicólogos de PrimeCare califican la salud mental de los presos en una escala de la A a la D. Los que tienen una calificación D son los más gravemente enfermos.

Rollings-Mazza indicó que constituyen entre el 10% y el 15% de la población total de las cárceles atendidas por PrimeCare. Otro 40% de la población tiene una calificación C, también indicativa de enfermedad grave.

Añadió que ese sistema de clasificación ayuda a determinar la atención que prestan los psicólogos, pero tiene poco efecto en las políticas de las cárceles.

“Hay algunas cárceles en las que no entienden o no quieren apoyarnos”, dijo. “Algunos agentes no están formados en salud mental al nivel que deberían”.

Rollings-Mazza explicó que su equipo ve con frecuencia llegar a la cárcel a personas que “no se ajustan a la realidad” debido a una enfermedad psiquiátrica y no pueden entender o cumplir órdenes básicas. A menudo se les mantiene alejados de otras personas, entre rejas, por su propia seguridad, y pueden pasar hasta 23 horas al día solos.

Ese aislamiento prácticamente garantiza que las personas vulnerables entren en una espiral de crisis, afirmó la doctora Mariposa McCall, psiquiatra residente en California que ha publicado recientemente un artículo en el que analiza los efectos del aislamiento.

Su trabajo forma parte de un amplio conjunto de investigaciones que demuestran que mantener a una persona sola en una celda pequeña, todo el día, puede causar daños psicológicos duraderos.

McCall trabajó durante varios años en prisiones estatales de California y dijo que es importante comprender que la cultura de los funcionarios de prisiones prioriza la seguridad y la obediencia por encima de todo. Por lo que pueden llegar a creer que quienes se autolesionan, en realidad, tratan de manipularlos.

Muchos guardias también ven a los presos con problemas de salud mental como potencialmente peligrosos.

“Y así se crea un cierto nivel de desconexión con el sufrimiento o la humanidad de las personas, porque se alimenta esa desconfianza”, señaló McCall. En ese entorno, los agentes se sienten justificados para usar la fuerza, sin importarles que la persona encarcelada les entienda o no.

Jamelia Morgan, profesora de la Facultad de Derecho Pritzker de la Universidad Northwestern, afirmó que, para comprender el problema, es útil examinar las decisiones tomadas en las horas y días previos a un incidente de uso de fuerza.

Morgan investiga un número creciente de demandas por uso de fuerza en las que están implicados presos con problemas de salud mental. Los abogados han argumentado con éxito que exigir que una persona con una enfermedad mental cumpla órdenes, que puede no entender, es una violación de sus derechos civiles. Esas demandas sugieren que las cárceles deberían proporcionar “soluciones razonables”.

“En algunos casos, es tan sencillo como que responda el personal médico, en lugar del personal de seguridad”, apuntó Morgan.

Los casos individuales pueden ser difíciles de litigar debido a un complejo proceso de quejas que los presos deben seguir antes de presentar una demanda, indicó Morgan y apuntó que para resolver el problema, los alcaides tendrán que redefinir lo que significa estar en la cárcel.

Esta investigación incluyó solicitudes de “derecho a saber” presentadas en 61 condados de Pennsylvania, y el equipo de investigación realizó un seguimiento con los guardias de algunos de los condados que publicaron informes sobre el uso de la fuerza. Ninguno accedió a hablar sobre la formación de sus funcionarios o sobre si podrían cambiar su forma de responder a las personas en crisis.

Algunas cárceles prueban nuevas estrategias. En Chicago, el departamento penitenciario del condado de Cook no tiene alcaide. En su lugar, tiene un “director ejecutivo” que también es psicólogo.

Este cambio forma parte de una revisión del funcionamiento de las cárceles después de que un informe del Departamento de Justicia, de 2008, revelara violaciones generalizadas de los derechos civiles de los presos.

En los últimos años, el sistema penitenciario del condado de Cook ha eliminado el confinamiento solitario, optando en su lugar por poner a los presos problemáticos en zonas comunes, pero con medidas de seguridad adicionales siempre que sea posible, declaró el sheriff del condado, Tom Dart.

La cárcel incluye un centro de transición de salud mental que ofrece alojamiento alternativo, un “entorno universitario de cabañas Quonset y jardines”, como lo describió Dart. Allí, los presos tienen acceso a clases de arte, fotografía y jardinería. También hay formación laboral, y los gestores de casos trabajan con agencias comunitarias locales, planificando lo que ocurrirá una vez que alguien salga de la cárcel.

Igualmente importante, según Dart, es que la dirección de la cárcel ha trabajado para cambiar la formación y las normas sobre cuándo es apropiado utilizar herramientas como el gas pimienta.

“Nuestro papel es mantenerlos seguros, y si tienes a alguien con una enfermedad mental, no veo cómo las pistolas Taser y el espray [de pimienta] pueden hacer otra cosa que agravar los problemas, solo deberían utilizarse como la última opción”, dijo Dart.

Las reformas del condado de Cook demuestran que el cambio es posible, pero hay miles de cárceles locales en todo Estados Unidos, y dependen de los gobiernos locales y estatales que establecen las políticas penitenciarias y que financian, o no, los servicios de salud mental que podrían evitar que personas vulnerables fueran a la cárcel.

En el condado de Dauphin, en Pennsylvania, donde murió Ishmail Thompson, las autoridades afirmaron que el problema, y las soluciones, van más allá de los muros de la cárcel. Hambright, vocero del condado, señaló que la financiación se ha mantenido estancada mientras aumenta el número de personas que necesitan servicios de salud mental. Eso ha llevado a una dependencia excesiva de las cárceles, que “siempre están disponibles”.

“Ciertamente nos gustaría ver a algunos de estos individuos tratados y alojados en lugares mejor equipados para tratar la especificidad de sus condiciones”, añadió Hambright. “Pero debemos utilizar lo que nos ofrece el sistema lo mejor que podamos con los recursos que tenemos”.

Esta historia es parte de una aliuanza que incluye a WITF, NPR, y KHN.

Brett Sholtis recibió la Rosalynn Carter Fellowship for Mental Health Journalism 2021-22, y esta investigación recibió apoyo adicional de The Benjamin von Sternenfels Rosenthal Grant for Mental Health Investigative Journalism, en alianza el Carter Center and Reveal del the Center for Investigative Reporting.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

“Honestamente, no quería pasar 10 días solo en una habitación, lo llaman el agujero”, dijo Ramírez-Cecena, quien espera que decidan si es deportado a México o puede permanecer en los Estados Unidos, en donde ha vivido por más de dos décadas.

Poco antes de que Ramírez-Cecena se enfermara, los funcionarios del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE) de la instalación le negaron su solicitud de alta médica. Es VIH positivo, que según la lista de los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades es una afección que puede aumentar el riesgo de enfermar gravemente por covid.

Ahora, frente al tercer invierno pandémico, reza para no contraer covid mientras está detenido. “Todavía da miedo”, dijo.

En todo el país, la posibilidad de desarrollar una enfermedad grave o morir por covid ha bajado, por las vacunas de refuerzo actualizadas, las pruebas en el hogar y las terapias. La mayoría de las personas pueden sopesar los riesgos de asistir a reuniones o viajar.

Pero para las aproximadamente 30,000 personas que viven en espacios cerrados en la red de instalaciones de inmigración del país, covid sigue siendo una amenaza constante.

El ICE actualizó su guía de pandemia en noviembre. Pero las instalaciones han ignorado las recomendaciones anteriores de usar máscaras y equipo de protección, tener pruebas y vacunas disponibles, y evitar el uso del confinamiento solitario como cuarentena, según detenidos, grupos de defensa e informes internos del gobierno federal.

Según los protocolos de ICE, el aislamiento por covid, utilizado para evitar que otros detenidos se enfermen, debe estar separado de la segregación disciplinaria.

La agencia no abordó este punto, pero dijo en un comunicado a KHN que a los detenidos se los coloca en una “sala de alojamiento médico individual” o en un “una habitación de aislamiento médico de infecciones transmitidas por el aire”, cuando esté disponible.

La atención médica en los centros de detención de inmigrantes ya era deficiente antes de la pandemia. Y en septiembre, las personas médicamente vulnerables en los centros de detención de ICE perdieron una protección, con la expiración de una orden judicial que requería que los funcionarios federales de inmigración consideraran la liberación de los detenidos con riesgo de covid.

La agencia “ha renunciado por completo a proteger a las personas detenidas de covid”, dijo Zoe Bowman, abogada supervisora ​​de Las Américas Immigrant Advocacy Center en El Paso, Texas.

El uso de la detención de inmigrantes en el país se disparó a fines de la década de 1990 y creció después de la creación de ICE en 2003. Los centros de detención —unos 200 complejos privados, instalaciones administradas por ICE, cárceles locales y prisiones repartidas por todo el país— retienen a adultos que no son ciudadanos estadounidenses mientras disputan o esperan la deportación.

La duración promedio de la estadía en el año fiscal federal 2022 fue de aproximadamente 22 días, según la agencia. Los defensores de los inmigrantes han argumentado durante mucho tiempo que las personas no deberían ser detenidas y, en cambio, se les debería permitir vivir en comunidades.

El Centro de Detención de Stewart, un vasto complejo rodeado de cercas con alambre de púas en los bosques de Lumpkin, tiene una de las poblaciones de detenidos más grande del país. Cuatro personas bajo la custodia del centro han muerto por covid desde el comienzo de la pandemia, el mayor número de muertes por covid registradas en estos centros.

Cuando funcionarios de inmigración transfirieron a Cipriano Álvarez-Chávez al centro de Stewart en agosto de 2020, todavía confiaba en la máscara que tenía después de ser liberado de la prisión federal en julio, según su hija, Martha Chavez.

Diez días después, el sobreviviente de linfoma de 63 años fue llevado a un hospital en Columbus, a 40 millas de distancia donde dio positivo para covid, según su informe de defunción. Murió después de pasar más de un mes conectado a un ventilador.

“Fue pura negligencia”, dijo su hija.

Dos años después de la muerte de Álvarez-Chávez, grupos de defensa y detenidos dijeron que el ICE no ha hecho lo suficiente para proteger de covid a los detenidos, una situación consistente con el historial de atención médica deficiente y falta de higiene de las instalaciones.

“Es desalentador ver que no importa cuánto empeoran las cosas, nada cambia”, dijo la doctora Amy Zeidan, profesora asistente en la Facultad de Medicina de la Universidad de Emory, quien revisa los registros de salud de los detenidos y realiza evaluaciones médicas para las personas que buscan asilo.

Una investigación bipartidista del Senado reveló en noviembre que las mujeres en el Centro de Detención del Condado de Irwin en Georgia “parecen haber sido sometidas a procedimientos ginecológicos excesivos, invasivos y, a menudo, innecesarios”.

En el Centro de Procesamiento de Folkston, también en Georgia, el ICE no respondió a las solicitudes médicas de manera oportuna, tuvo una atención de salud mental inadecuada y no cumplió con los estándares básicos de higiene, incluidos baños funcionales, según un informe de junio de la Oficina del Inspector General de Seguridad del Departamento de Asuntos Internos. Y una denuncia presentada en julio por un grupo de organizaciones de defensa alegó que una enfermera del centro Stewart agredió sexualmente a cuatro mujeres.

El ICE defendió su atención médica en un comunicado enviado por correo electrónico, diciendo que gasta más de $315 millones anualmente en atención médica, y que garantiza la prestación de los servicios médicos necesarios e integrales.

Aún así, muchas instalaciones carecen de personal y están mal equipadas para manejar las necesidades médicas a largo plazo de la gran población de detenidos, dijo Zeidan. La atención tardía es común, la atención especializada es casi inexistente y el acceso a la terapia es limitado, dijo. El cuidado de covid no es diferente.

En sus protocolos para covid, el ICE recomienda el uso de anticuerpos monoclonales, que ayudan al sistema inmunológico a responder de manera más efectiva a covid, para el tratamiento. Pero no reconoce ninguno de los otros tratamientos recomendados por los CDC, incluidos los antivirales como Paxlovid, que pueden reducir las hospitalizaciones y las muertes entre los pacientes con covid.

“Durante décadas, el ICE ha demostrado ser incapaz y no estar dispuesto a garantizar la salud y la seguridad de las personas bajo su custodia”, dijo Sofia Casini, directora de monitoreo y defensa comunitaria de Freedom for Immigrants, un grupo de defensa. “Covid-19 solo ha empeorado esta horrible realidad”.

Once personas han muerto por covid bajo custodia de ICE. Pero ese número puede ser una subestimación; defensores de los detenidos han acusado a la agencia de liberar a las personas o deportarlas cuando están gravemente enfermas como una forma de evadir las estadísticas de muertes.

Antes de la pandemia, Johana Medina León fue liberada de la custodia de ICE cuatro días antes de su muerte, según un artículo de mayo en Los Angeles Times. Vio a un médico unas seis semanas después de su primera solicitud, decía el artículo, pero ICE aceleró su liberación solo unas horas después de que su condición empeorara.

Este otoño, los detenidos recluidos en instalaciones de todo el país llamaron a la línea directa de detención de Freedom for Immigrants para quejarse de las condiciones de covid, que varían de una instalación a otra, dijo Casini. “Incluso en la misma instalación, puede cambiar de semana a semana”, dijo.

Según Casini, muchas personas que habían dado positivo para covid estaban recluidas en las mismas celdas que las personas que habían dado negativo, incluidas las personas médicamente vulnerables. Este verano, el grupo encuestó a 89 personas a través de su línea directa y descubrió que alrededor del 30% de los encuestados tuvieron problemas para acceder a las vacunas mientras estuvieron detenidos.

Ramírez-Cecena dijo que le dijeron que es elegible para una segunda vacuna de refuerzo de covid, pero que, a diciembre, aún no la había recibido. Un detenido en el Centro de Procesamiento de Moshannon Valley en Pennsylvania dijo que a un guardia se le permitió interactuar con los detenidos mientras estaba visiblemente enfermo, dijo Brittney Bringuez, coordinadora del programa de asilo de Physicians for Human Rights, quien visitó las instalaciones este otoño.

La orden judicial que requería que ICE considerara la liberación de personas con alto riesgo de covid ha ayudado a los detenidos con afecciones médicas graves, dijeron los defensores. Según la orden, ICE liberó a unos 60,000 detenidos médicamente vulnerables en dos años, dijo Susan Meyers, abogada sénior del Southern Poverty Law Center, uno de los grupos de defensa que ayudó a presentar la demanda que resultó en la orden judicial.

El ICE dijo en un comunicado que aún considerará los factores de riesgo de covid como una razón para la liberación. Pero los abogados dijeron que las instalaciones de ICE a menudo no cumplían con la orden judicial cuando estaba vigente.

El año pasado, el ICE negó la solicitud de liberación de Ricardo Chambers del Centro de Detención de Stewart. Chambers, de 40 años, tiene enfermedades psiquiátricas graves, consideradas un factor de riesgo según la orden judicial. También tiene problemas para respirar y se ahoga mientras duerme, como resultado de una lesión nasal que sufrió en un ataque antes de ser detenido. A dos años de estar detenido, todavía no recibió atención para esa lesión.

Ha presentado quejas sobre los protocolos para covid de Stewart, incluidas las condiciones de hacinamiento y la falta de uso de máscaras u otro equipo de protección por parte del personal.

Al negar su liberación, el ICE dijo que Chambers era una amenaza para la seguridad pública debido a sus antecedentes penales, según su abogada Erin Argueta, abogada principal de la oficina de la Iniciativa de Libertad de Inmigrantes del Sureste del Southern Poverty Law Center en Lumpkin. Chambers ya cumplió sus condenas, dijo, y hay una familia en Nueva York que lo acogería.

A principios de este año, fue enviado a confinamiento solitario durante unos 10 días después de dar positivo para covid, dijo. Pero Chambers, quien está luchando contra una orden de deportación a Jamaica, dijo que su experiencia con covid no fue diferente de las otras veces que estuvo en aislamiento.

“Serás tratado como un animal, enjaulado y sin tener culpa de nada”, dijo Chambers.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

“Honestly, I didn’t want to go spend 10 days by myself in a room — they call it the hole,” Ramirez-Cecena said. He is being held at the center as he waits to learn whether he will be deported to Mexico or can remain in the United States, where he has lived for more than two decades.

Shortly before Ramirez-Cecena got sick, officials from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the facility denied his request for a medical release. He is HIV-positive, which is on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s list of conditions that make a person more likely to get seriously ill from covid.

Now, heading into the third pandemic winter, he’s praying he doesn’t get covid while detained. “It is still scary,” he said.

Across the country, the chance of developing severe illness or dying from covid has fallen, a result of updated booster shots, at-home tests, and therapeutics. Most people can weigh the risks of attending gatherings or traveling. But for the roughly 30,000 people living in close quarters in the country’s network of immigration facilities, covid remains an ever-present threat.

ICE updated its pandemic guidance in November. But facilities have flouted past recommendations to use masks and protective equipment, to make testing and vaccines available, and to avoid the use of solitary confinement for quarantining, according to detainees, advocacy groups, and internal federal government reports.

Under ICE’s pandemic protocols, covid isolation, used to keep other detainees from falling ill, must be separate from disciplinary segregation. The agency didn’t address claims that facilities have used solitary confinement areas to isolate detainees who have tested positive for covid but said in a statement to KHN that detainees are placed in a “single, medical housing room” or a “medical airborne infection isolation room” when available.

Medical care in immigration detention facilities was deficient even before the pandemic. Then, in September, medically vulnerable people in ICE detention facilities lost a source of protection, with the expiration of a court order that had required federal immigration officials to consider releasing detainees with covid risks.

The agency has “completely given up on protecting people in detention from covid,” said Zoe Bowman, supervising attorney at Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center in El Paso, Texas.

The country’s use of immigration detention exploded in the late 1990s and rose even more after the creation of ICE in 2003. Detention facilities — made up of about 200 privately run complexes, ICE-run facilities, local jails, and prisons scattered across the country — hold adults who are not U.S. citizens while they contest or await deportation. The average length of stay in the 2022 federal fiscal year was about 22 days, according to the agency. Advocates for immigrants have long argued that people shouldn’t be detained and instead should be allowed to live in communities.

Stewart Detention Center, a vast complex surrounded by rows of barbed wire in Lumpkin’s forests, has one of the largest populations of detainees in the country. Four people in the center’s custody have died from covid since the start of the pandemic — the highest number of recorded covid deaths among detention centers.

When immigration officials transferred Cipriano Alvarez-Chavez to the Stewart center in August 2020, he was still relying on the mask he had after being released from federal prison in July, according to his daughter, Martha Chavez.

Ten days later, the 63-year-old lymphoma survivor was taken to a hospital in Columbus, 40 miles away, where he tested positive for covid, according to his death report. He died after spending more than a month on a ventilator.

“It was pure neglect,” his daughter said. His death “shattered our world.”

Two years after Alvarez-Chavez’s death, advocacy groups and detainees said ICE has not done enough to protect detainees from covid, a situation consistent with the facilities’ history of poor medical care and lack of hygiene. “It’s disheartening to see that no matter how bad things get, they don’t change,” said Dr. Amy Zeidan, an assistant professor at Emory University School of Medicine, who reviews detainee health records and performs medical evaluations for people seeking asylum.

A bipartisan Senate investigation revealed in November that women at Georgia’s Irwin County Detention Center “appear to have been subjected to excessive, invasive, and often unnecessary gynecological procedures.” At the Folkston Processing Center, also in Georgia, ICE did not respond to medical requests in a timely manner, had inadequate mental health care, and failed to meet basic hygiene standards, including working toilets, according to a June report from the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General. And a July complaint filed by a group of advocacy organizations alleged that a nurse at the Stewart center sexually assaulted four women.

ICE defended its medical care in an emailed statement, saying that it spends more than $315 million on health care annually and ensures the provision of necessary and comprehensive medical services.

Still, many facilities are understaffed and ill-equipped to handle the long-term medical needs of the large detainee population, Zeidan said. Delayed care is common, specialty care is almost nonexistent, and access to therapeutics is limited, she said. Covid care is no different.

In its covid protocols, ICE recommends the use of monoclonal antibodies, which help the immune system respond more effectively to covid, for treatment. But it recognizes none of the other CDC-recommended treatments, including antivirals such as Paxlovid, which can reduce hospitalizations and deaths among covid patients.

“For decades, ICE has proven itself incapable and unwilling to ensure the health and safety of people in its custody,” said Sofia Casini, director of monitoring and community advocacy at Freedom for Immigrants, an advocacy group. “Covid-19 has only worsened this horrifying reality.”

Eleven people have died from covid in ICE custody. But that number may be an underestimate; advocates for detainees have accused the agency of releasing people or deporting them when they are seriously ill as a way to suppress the death statistics.

Before the pandemic, Johana Medina Leon was released from ICE custody four days before her death, according to a May article in the Los Angeles Times. She saw a doctor about six weeks after her first request, the article said, but ICE expedited her release only hours after her condition grew dire.

This fall, detainees being held at facilities across the country called Freedom for Immigrants’ detention hotline to complain about covid conditions, which vary facility to facility, Casini said. “Even in the same facility, it can change week to week,” she said.

Many people who had tested positive for covid were being held in the same cells as people who had tested negative, including people who were medically vulnerable, according to Casini. The group surveyed 89 people through its hotline this summer and found that about 30% of respondents had trouble accessing vaccines in detention.

Ramirez-Cecena said he was told that he’s eligible for a second covid booster shot but had yet to receive it as of December. A detainee at Moshannon Valley Processing Center in Pennsylvania said a guard was allowed to interact with detainees while visibly sick, said Brittney Bringuez, asylum program coordinator at Physicians for Human Rights, who visited the facility this fall.

The court order that required ICE to consider releasing people with covid risks has helped detainees with serious medical conditions, advocates said. Under the order, ICE released about 60,000 medically vulnerable detainees in two years, said Susan Meyers, senior staff attorney at the Southern Poverty Law Center, one of the advocacy groups that helped bring the lawsuit that resulted in the court order.

ICE said in a statement it will still consider covid risk factors as a reason for release. But lawyers said ICE facilities often failed to comply with the court order when it was in place.

Last year, ICE denied Ricardo Chambers’ request for release from Stewart Detention Center. Chambers, who is 40, has serious psychiatric illnesses, considered a risk factor under the court order. He also has trouble breathing and chokes in his sleep — the result of a nasal injury he sustained in an attack before he was detained. It has yet to be repaired during the two years he has been at the detention facility.

He has filed complaints about Stewart’s covid protocols, including crowded conditions and failures by staffers to wear masks or other protective equipment. In its denial of his release, ICE said Chambers was a threat to public safety because of his criminal history, according to his lawyer Erin Argueta, lead attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Southeast Immigrant Freedom Initiative office in Lumpkin. Chambers has served prison time for his criminal convictions, she said, and there’s a family in New York that would take him in.

Earlier this year, he was sent to solitary confinement for about 10 days after testing positive for covid, he said. But Chambers, who is fighting a deportation order to Jamaica, said his covid experience was no different from the other times he had been in solitary.

“You’ll be treated like an animal, caged, and for no fault of your own,” Chambers said.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

She shows up to build trust with those she encounters and offers water, condoms, referrals to services, and opportunities to be tested for HIV — anything she can muster that might be useful to someone in need.

She has seen firsthand how being proactive can combat an HIV outbreak that has persisted in the city and nearby areas since 2018. She also has witnessed the cost of political pullback on the effort.

Parker, 38, is a care coordinator for the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, a federal initiative that provides HIV-related services nationwide. Her work has helped build pathways into a difficult-to-reach community for which times have been particularly hard. It’s getting increasingly difficult to find a place to sleep for the night without being rousted by police. And many in this close-knit group of unhoused individuals and families remain shaken by the recent death, from complications of AIDS, of a woman Parker knew well.

The woman was barely in her 30s. Parker had encouraged her to seek medical care, but she was living in an alley; each day brought new challenges. If she could have gotten basic needs met, a few nights’ decent sleep to clear her head, Parker said, she would have more likely been open to receiving care.

Such losses, Parker and a cadre of experts believe, will continue, and maybe worsen, as political winds in the state blow against efforts to control an expanding HIV outbreak.

In August 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded its investigation of an HIV outbreak in Kanawha County, home to Charleston, where people who inject opioids and methamphetamine are at highest risk. The CDC’s HIV prevention chief had called it “the most concerning HIV outbreak in the United States” and warned that the number of reported diagnoses could be just “the tip of the iceberg.”

HIV spreads easily through contaminated needles; the CDC reports the virus can survive in a used syringe for up to 42 days. Research shows offering clean syringes to people who use IV drugs is effective in combating the spread of HIV.

Following its probe, the CDC issued recommendations to expand and improve access to sterile syringes, testing, and treatment. It urged officials to co-locate services for easier access.

But amid this crisis, state and local government officials have enacted laws and ordinances that make clean syringes harder to get. In April 2021, the state legislature passed a bill limiting the number of syringes people could exchange and required that they present an ID. Charleston’s City Council added an ordinance imposing criminal charges for violations.

As a result, advocates say, a substantial number of those at highest risk of contracting HIV remain vulnerable and untested.

Public health experts also worry that HIV infections are gaining a foothold in nearby rural areas, where sterile syringes and testing are harder to come by.

Joe Solomon is co-director of Solutions Oriented Addiction Response, an organization that previously offered clean syringes in exchange for contaminated ones in Kanawha County. Solomon said the CDC’s recommendations were precisely what SOAR once provided: co-location of essential services. But SOAR has ceased exchanging syringes in the face of the efforts to criminalize such work.

Solomon, who was recently elected to the Charleston City Council on a platform that includes measures to counter the region’s drug crisis, said the backlash against what’s known as harm reduction is “a public attack on public health.”

Epidemiologists agree: They contend sidelining syringe exchanges and the HIV testing they help catalyze may be exacerbating the HIV outbreak.

Fifty-six new cases of HIV were reported in 2021 in Kanawha County — which has a population of just under 180,000 — with 46 of those cases attributed to injection drug use. By the end of November, 27 new cases had been reported this year, 20 related to drug injection.

But the CDC’s “tip of the iceberg” assessment resonates with researchers and advocates. Robin Pollini, a West Virginia epidemiologist, has interviewed people in the county with injection-related HIV. “All of them are saying that syringe sharing is rampant,” she said. She believes it’s reasonable to infer there are far more than 20 people in the county who’ve contracted HIV this year from contaminated needles.

Pollini is among those concerned that testing initiatives aren’t reaching the people most at risk: those who use illicit drugs, many of whom are transient, and who may have reason to be wary of authority figures.

“I think that you can’t really know how many cases there are unless you have a very savvy testing strategy and very strong outreach,” she said.

Research shows sustained, well-targeted testing paired with access to clean syringes can effectively slow or stop an HIV outbreak.

In late 2015, the Kanawha-Charleston Health Department launched a syringe exchange, but in 2018 shuttered it after the city imposed restrictions on the number of syringes that could be exchanged and who could receive them. Then-Mayor Danny Jones called it a “mini-mall for junkies and drug dealers.”

When officials abandoned the effort, SOAR began hosting health fairs where it exchanged clean syringes for used ones. It also distributed the opioid overdose-reversing drug naloxone; offered treatment, referrals, and fellowship; and provided HIV testing.

But when the new state restrictions and local criminal ordinance took effect, SOAR ceased exchanging syringes, and attendance at its fairs plummeted.

“It’s indisputable and well established. It’s comprehensive; it’s inclusive,” Pollini said of research supporting syringe exchange. “You can’t even get funding to study the effectiveness of syringe service programs anymore because it’s established science that they work.”

Syringe exchanges are credited with tamping down an HIV outbreak in Scott County, Indiana, in 2015, after infections spread to more than 200 intravenous drug users. At that time, then-Gov. Mike Pence — after initially being resistant — approved the state’s first syringe service.

A team of epidemiologists worked with the Scott County Health Department on a study that determined that discontinuing the program would result in an increase in HIV infections of nearly 60%. But in June 2021, local officials voted to shut it down.

In Kanawha County, SOAR was making inroads. Interviews with numerous clients underscore that people felt safe at its health fairs. They could seek services anonymously. But most acknowledge that the promise of clean syringes was what brought them in.

Charleston-based West Virginia Health Right operates a syringe exchange that Dr. Steven Eshenaur, executive director of the Kanawha-Charleston Health Department, credits with helping reduce the number of new HIV diagnoses. But advocates say the imposed constraints — particularly the requirement to present an ID, which many potential clients don’t have — inhibit its success.

HIV diagnoses are up this year in nearby Cabell County and Pollini worries that without more aggressive action, an HIV epidemic could take root statewide. As of Dec. 1, 24 of West Virginia’s 55 counties had reported at least one positive diagnosis this year.

HIV is preventable. It’s also treatable, but treatment is expensive. The average cost of an antiretroviral regimen ranges from $36,000 to $48,000 a year. “If you’re 20 years old, you could live to be 70 or 80,” said Christine Teague, director of the Ryan White program in Charleston. That’s a cost of more than $2 million.

Saving lives and money, Pollini said, requires being both proactive — ongoing, comprehensive testing — and reactive — ramping up efforts when cases rise.

It also requires “meeting people where they are,” as it’s commonly put — building trust, which opens the door to education about what HIV is, how it’s spread, and how to combat it.

Teague said it also requires something more: addressing the fundamental needs of those on the margins; foremost, housing.

Parker agrees: “Low-barrier and transitional housing would be a godsend.”

But Teague questions whether the political will exists to confront HIV full force among those most at risk in West Virginia.

“I hate to say it, but it’s like people think that this is a group of people that are beyond help,” she said.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Medical equipment is still strewn around the house of Rick Lucas, 62, nearly two years after he came home from the hospital. He picks up a spirometer, a device that measures lung capacity, and takes a deep breath — though not as deep as he’d like.

Still, Lucas has come a long way for someone who spent more than three months on a ventilator because of covid-19.

“I’m almost normal now,” he said. “I was thrilled when I could walk to the mailbox. Now we’re walking all over town.”

Dozens of major medical centers have established specialized covid clinics around the country. A crowdsourced project counted more than 400. But there’s no standard protocol for treating long covid. And experts are casting a wide net for treatments, with few ready for formal clinical trials.

It’s not clear just how many people have suffered from symptoms of long covid. Estimates vary widely from study to study — often because the definition of long covid itself varies. But the more conservative estimates still count millions of people with this condition. For some, the lingering symptoms are worse than the initial bout of covid. Others, like Lucas, were on death’s door and experienced a roller-coaster recovery, much worse than expected, even after a long hospitalization.

Symptoms vary widely. Lucas had brain fog, fatigue, and depression. He’d start getting his energy back, then go try light yardwork and end up in the hospital with pneumonia.

It wasn’t clear which ailments stemmed from being on a ventilator so long and which signaled the mysterious condition called long covid.

“I was wanting to go to work four months after I got home,” Rick said over the laughter of his wife and primary caregiver, Cinde.

“I said, ‘You know what, just get up and go. You can’t drive. You can’t walk. But go in for an interview. Let’s see how that works,’” Cinde recalled.

Rick did start working earlier this year, taking short-term assignments in his old field as a nursing home administrator. But he’s still on partial disability.

Why has Rick mostly recovered while so many haven’t shaken the symptoms, even years later?

“There is absolutely nothing anywhere that’s clear about long covid,” said Dr. Steven Deeks, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California-San Francisco. “We have a guess at how frequently it happens. But right now, everyone’s in a data-free zone.”

Researchers like Deeks are trying to establish the condition’s underlying causes. Some of the theories include inflammation, autoimmunity, so-called microclots, and bits of the virus left in the body. Deeks said institutions need more money to create regional centers of excellence to bring together physicians from various specialties to treat patients and research therapies.

Patients say they are desperate and willing to try anything to feel normal again. And often they post personal anecdotes online.

“I’m following this stuff on social media, looking for a home run,” Deeks said.

The National Institutes of Health promises big advances soon through the RECOVER Initiative, involving thousands of patients and hundreds of researchers.

“Given the widespread and diverse impact the virus has on the human body, it is unlikely that there will be one cure, one treatment,” Dr. Gary Gibbons, director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, told NPR. “It is important that we help find solutions for everyone. This is why there will be multiple clinical trials over the coming months.”

Meanwhile, tension is building in the medical community over what appears to be a grab-bag approach in treating long covid ahead of big clinical trials. Some clinicians hesitate to try therapies before they’re supported by research.

Dr. Kristin Englund, who oversees more than 2,000 long covid patients at the Cleveland Clinic, said a bunch of one-patient experiments could muddy the waters for research. She said she encouraged her team to stick with “evidence-based medicine.”

“I’d rather not be just kind of one-off trying things with people, because we really do need to get more data and evidence-based data,” she said. “We need to try to put things in some sort of a protocol moving forward.”

It’s not that she lacks urgency. Englund experienced her own long covid symptoms. She felt terrible for months after getting sick in 2020, “literally taking naps on the floor of my office in the afternoon,” she said.

More than anything, she said, these long covid clinics need to validate patients’ experiences with their illness and give them hope. She tries to stick with proven therapies.

For example, some patients with long covid develop POTS — a syndrome that causes them to get dizzy and their heart to race when they stand up. Englund knows how to treat those symptoms. With other patients, it’s not as straightforward. Her long covid clinic focuses on diet, sleep, meditation, and slowly increasing activity.

But other doctors are willing to throw all sorts of treatments at the wall to see what might stick.

At the Lucas house in Tennessee, the kitchen counter can barely contain the pill bottles of supplements and prescriptions. One is a drug for memory. “We discovered his memory was worse [after taking it],” Cinde said.

Other treatments, however, seemed to have helped. Cinde asked their doctor about her husband possibly taking testosterone to boost his energy, and, after doing research, the doctor agreed to give it a shot.

“People like myself are getting a little bit out over my skis, looking for things that I can try,” said Dr. Stephen Heyman, a pulmonologist who treats Rick Lucas at the long covid clinic at Ascension Saint Thomas in Nashville.

He’s trying medications seen as promising in treating addiction and combinations of drugs used for cholesterol and blood clots. And he has considered becoming a bit of a guinea pig himself.

Heyman has been up and down with his own long covid. At one point, he thought he was past the memory lapses and breathing trouble, then he caught the virus a second time and feels more fatigued than ever.

“I don’t think I can wait for somebody to tell me what I need to do,” he said. “I’m going to have to use my expertise to try and find out why I don’t feel well.”

This story is from a reporting partnership that includes WPLN, NPR, and KHN.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).